Opinion
February 26, 2001.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered April 27, 2000, which granted defendant landlord's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted defendant's cross motion for a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to succeed to the tenancy rights of the deceased tenant of record of the subject loft premises, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Mitchell P. Heaney, for plaintiff-appellant.
Patrick K. Munson, for defendant-respondent.
Before: Sullivan, P.J., Tom, Lerner, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.
Plaintiff brought this action to obtain, inter alia, a declaration that she is entitled to succeed to the tenancy of her deceased life partner in premises falling under the aegis of the Loft Law (Multiple Dwelling Law, Article 7-C). However, neither the Loft Law nor the regulations promulgated thereunder provide for tenancy succession rights, and since the right to succeed to the tenancy of a regulated unit can only be granted pursuant to properly promulgated regulations expressly granting such rights (see, Sullivan v. Brevard Assocs., 66 N.Y.2d 489; Two Assocs. v. Brown, 127 A.D.2d 173, appeal dismissed and lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 792), the motion court properly declined plaintiff's invitation to rectify the purported omission (see, 518 W. 134th St. Tenants Assn. v. Calderon, 181 Misc.2d 216, 217).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.