Opinion
570228/21
02-28-2022
Highline 22 LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, v. Brent Lawler, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: EDMEAD, P.J., BRIGANTTI, SILVERA, JJ.
PER CURIAM
Landlord, as limited by its brief, appeals from those portions of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Evon M. Asforis, J.), dated June 22, 2020, which granted, in part, tenant's motion for discovery and denied landlord's motion for partial summary judgment and to dismiss tenant's first and second affirmative defenses and first and second counterclaims in a nonpayment summary proceeding.
Order (Evon M. ASforis, J.), dated June 22, 2020, affirmed, without costs.
Although we affirm, we note that the court erred in concluding that the amendments to the rent stabilization laws in the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA [L 2019, ch 36]) apply to this 2018 proceeding (see Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 N.Y.3d 332 [2020]). The error does not affect the result, however, because "under the law at the time the petition was filed, a tenant should be able to challenge the deregulated status of an apartment at any time during the tenancy. Upon such a challenge, consideration of events beyond the four-year period is permissible if done not for the purpose of calculating an overcharge but rather to determine whether an apartment is regulated" (Matter of 150 E. Third St LLC v Ryan, __ A.D.3d __, 2022 NY Slip Op 00497 [1st Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
In this context, and in view of the sizeable rent increase in 1996 (more than four times the prior rent), as well as the subsequent and admittedly incorrect registration listing the apartment as exempt because "owner occupied/employee," we find that Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in granting limited discovery relating to the events that were the basis for the purported deregulation of the apartment (see Mautner-Glick Corp. v Higgins, 64 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 1st Dept 2019]; Aimco 322 E. 61st St., LLC v Brosius, 50 Misc.3d 10, 12 [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]).
Landlord's cross motion for partial summary judgment was properly denied, since it failed to meet its burden of establishing the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether the apartment was properly deregulated prior to tenant's occupancy (see Similis Mgt. LLC v Dzganiya, 71 Misc.3d 129 [A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50245[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2021]). Likewise, tenant's coverage and overcharge defenses and counterclaims are not subject to summary dismissal on this record (see Aimco 322 E. 61st St., LLC v Brosius, 50 Misc.3d 10).
All concur