You are here: / / NYC LOFT BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED TENANTS’ WITHDRAWAL OF THE...
, ,

NYC LOFT BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED TENANTS’ WITHDRAWAL OF THE LOFT LAW CONVERSION APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO OBTAIN RENT REGULATION COVERAGE OUTSIDE THE LOFT LAW’S STATUTORY SCHEME (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the tenants’ request to withdraw the conversion application under the Loft Law should have been granted by the NYC Loft Board:

This article 78 proceeding stems from an application for the legal conversion of certain lofts in New York City from commercial use to residential use pursuant to Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (§ 283), commonly known as the Loft Law. Where owners register covered buildings and comply with the Loft Law’s requirements, the Loft Law will deem a building an “interim multiple dwelling (IMD)” (Multiple Dwelling Law § 284[1]), which would allow the owner to collect rent from residential occupants, despite the lack of a residential certificate of occupancy (Multiple Dwelling Law §§ 283, 285, 301). The Loft Law requires landlords to bring converted residences up to code and prevents them from charging tenants for improvements until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (Multiple Dwelling Law § 284(1)). The Loft Law is administered by the New York City Loft Board (Multiple Dwelling Law § 282). * * *

Here, the petitioner tenant claims, and the Loft Board does not dispute, that there is a separate and independent track for the tenants to obtain rent regulation coverage outside the Loft Law’s statutory scheme. It is undisputed that the four residential occupancies are legal under New York City Zoning applicable to the area where the subject building is located. While the Rent Stabilization Law usually requires buildings to have six or more residential units, adjacent buildings with common facilities, ownership, and management are treated as one integrated unit, thereby constituting a horizontal multiple dwelling for purposes of rent stabilization … . In this case, the subject building is a rear building that adjoins a front building that is already subject to rent stabilization. Given that the buildings share common ownership — a sprinkler system, a plumbing system, and their respective electric meters and mailboxes are at the same location — the rear building appears to be part of a horizontal multiple dwelling that would be subject to rent stabilization once the residential certificate of occupancy is procured by the owner. Matter of Callen v New York City Loft Bd., 2020 NY Slip Op 00368, First Dept 1-16-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED ON DEBRIS AND FELL INTO A TWO-TO-THREE-FOOT-DEEP PIT FROM WHICH THE PLYWOOD COVER HAD BEEN REMOVED TRIGGERING POTENTIAL LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY; TWO DEFENDANTS MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 FOR THE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
A WAIVER OF APPEAL DOES NOT PRECLUDE A CHALLENGE TO A PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING CONSENT TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES; IN THE PLEA PROCEEDINGS, DEFENDANT ADMITTED PUNCHING THE VICTIM; THE PROBATION CONDITION ALLOWING SEARCHES FOR DRUGS AND WEAPONS HAD NO CONNECTION TO THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE FACTS, PLAINTIFF CAN ASSERT A CLAIM FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT, EVEN THOUGH BOTH ARE SIGNATORIES TO THE MULTILATERAL CONTRACTS; THE PARTIES HAVE DIFFERENT RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER THE CONTRACTS (FIRST DEPT).
Denial of “For Cause” Challenges to Jurors Who Said They Needed to Hear “Both Sides of the Story” Required Reversal
THE “DUAL JURY” PROCEDURE USED TO TRY DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED, AND THE CO-DEFENDANT, WHO WAS ACQUITTED, ALLOWED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY TO ACT AS A SECOND PROSECUTOR; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
THE INTERIM DECISION ISSUED BY SUPREME COURT WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ORDER; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).
VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON CHILDREN’S CONSENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S CHEMICAL BURNS WERE CAUSED BY THE INTENTIONALLY WRONGFUL, SPONTANEOUS, UNFORESEEABLE ACTS OF THIRD PARTIES OVER WHOM DEFENDANT SCHOOL HAD NO CONTROL OR AUTHORITY; STUDENTS HAD APPARENLY PUT DRANO IN A WATER BOTTLE WHICH PLAINTIFF KICKED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE SCHOOL DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF ON ITS LACK OF NOTICE (FIRST DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE TRUCK DRIVER WAS STEPPING OFF A RAMP ATTACHED TO THE BACK OF HIS... THE CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN...