Opinion
571121/02.
Decided August 29, 2003.
Respondent appeals from, inter alia, a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County, entered February 5, 2002 after a hearing (Laurie L. Lau, J.) awarding landlord use and occupancy in the principal sum of $129,398.70, plus interest of $30,085.20.
Judgment entered February 5, 2002 (Laurie L. Lau, J.) modified by limiting the use and occupancy award to the period May 1999 through July 2001, and by remanding the matter to the Civil Court for recalculation of interest on the award in accordance with this decision and for entry of an amended judgment; as modified, judgment affirmed, without costs.
Appeal from order dated January 29, 2002 (Laurie L. Lau, J.) dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the judgment entered February 5, 2002. Appeal from order dated March 19, 2002 (Laurie L. Lau, J.) dismissed, without costs, as academic.
PRESENT: HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J., HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, Justices.
On the prior appeals, it was determined that appellant was not entitled to succeed to occupancy of the Article 7-C loft unit upon the death of her sister, the record tenant (see, 595 Broadway Associates v. Bikman, 287 AD2d 285). Since appellant was not a lawful tenant of a regulated apartment, landlord's recovery for use and occupancy was not limited to the prior regulated amount (see, Weiden v. 926 Park Avenue Corp., 154 AD2d 308). Moreover, in light of the Loft Board's finding of abandonment, of which we take judicial notice, the unit was no longer subject to continued regulation under Article 7-C (see 10 RCNY § 2-10[c][2]; § 2-10[f][5]).
There is sufficient record evidence of rentals of similar lofts in the same building to support the hearing court's finding of $4,800 per month as fair rental value for the 2500 square foot space. (see, Beacway Operating Corp. v. Concert Arts Society, Inc., 123 Misc 2d 452). We limit the use and occupancy award to the period commencing May 1999, since use and occupancy for December 1998 through April 1999 was previously included in the final judgment entered May 11, 1999 — subsequently affirmed by this court and the Appellate Division — and was not subject to further modification or review. Prejudgment interest is more appropriately calculated from a "single reasonable intermediate date" (CPLR 5001[b]), in this case the midway point of the period in question, i.e., June 15, 2000 (see, Rose Associates v. Lenox Hill Hospital, 262 AD2d 68).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.