This case, 69-81 1**** LLC v. Z*, centers on a holdover summary proceeding where the landlord sought possession of an apartment that was purportedly unregulated. The tenant, PZ, contested the landlord’s claim, asserting that the premises should be subject to rent stabilization and raising additional defenses and counterclaims.
At its core, the legal battle hinged on whether the apartment had been properly deregulated. The tenant alleged that an illegal rent increase in 2005 rendered the deregulation process invalid. However, the appellate court determined that the landlord had demonstrated, as a matter of law, that the premises were not subject to rent stabilization. The tenant, failing to offer sufficient rebuttal, saw his first three affirmative defenses and first counterclaim dismissed.
An attempt to introduce a new argument—an alleged illegal rent increase in 2006—was dismissed outright as it was raised for the first time on appeal. Courts generally do not entertain arguments not initially presented at the trial level.
Beyond rent stabilization claims, the tenant also argued that the landlord failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. However, given the nature of a holdover proceeding concerning an unregulated apartment, the court found this defense meritless. The landlord had complied with all statutory requirements in initiating the proceeding, and as a result, the tenant’s fourth affirmative defense and second counterclaim were dismissed.
Having met the burden of proof required for summary judgment, the landlord successfully demonstrated entitlement to possession of the apartment. With no material issues of fact requiring a trial, the tenant’s case collapsed, including his counterclaim seeking attorney's fees.
Ultimately, the Appellate Term, First Department, reversed the lower court’s order, granting the landlord’s motion for dismissal of the tenant’s defenses and counterclaims, as well as summary judgment in favor of the landlord.
Think the tenant found that destabilizing?
# # #
DECISION