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
THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITIONS WERE TIMELY FILED; THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE CLIENT OF THE CLIENT’S RIGHT TO ARBITRATE A FEE DISPUTE WITHIN TWO YEARS OF WHEN THE LEGAL SERVICES WERE RENDERED PRECLUDES THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR PAYMENT OF THE FEE (FIRST DEPT).
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT INQUIRY WHEN THE JUROR EXPRESSED DOUBT SHE COULD BE FAIR.
Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,” the Company Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff—There Was No Evidence the Maintenance Company “Launched an Instrument of Harm,” the Only Available Theory of Liability (Re: Plaintiff) Which Could Have Arisen from the Maintenance Contract
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST AN ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR MALPRACTICE, FRAUD AND AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY; BOTH MOTHER AND SON ARE OWNERS OF A RESTAURANT; IT WAS ALLEGED THE SON’S TAKING A LARGE SALARY AND RECEIVING MILLIONS IN LOANS AGAINST THE BUSINESS WERE DOCUMENTED BY THE ACCOUNTING FIRM BUT NOT DISCLOSED TO MOTHER (FIRST DEPT). ​
JUROR DID NOT REVEAL DURING VOIR DIRE SHE HAD APPLIED FOR A JOB IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TWO DAYS BEFORE, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS BECAME AWARE OF THE ALLEGED FRAUD; THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
There Is No Legal or Constitutional Authority for a Pre-Execution Challenge to a Search Warrant—Facebook’s Attempt to Quash Search Warrants Seeking All the Information in 381 Subscribers’ Facebook Accounts Was Rejected

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 © 2026 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...