You are here: / / APARTMENTS RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS PURSUANT TO RPTL 421-g ARE SUBJECT TO...
, ,

APARTMENTS RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS PURSUANT TO RPTL 421-g ARE SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY VACANCY DECONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW AND WERE PROPERLY DEREGULATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ apartments, which received tax benefits pursuant to Real Property Tax Law 421-g are subject to the luxury vacancy decontrol provisions of the NYC Rent Stabilization Law. Therefore plaintiffs’ apartments were properly deregulated and were not subject to rent stabilization:

​

Except for condominiums and cooperatives, dwellings in buildings that receive tax benefits pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 421-g are subject to rent stabilization for the entire period the building is receiving 421-g benefits (Real Property Tax Law § 421-g[6]). However, 421-g buildings are subject to the luxury vacancy decontrol provisions of Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-504.2(a), unlike buildings that receive tax benefits pursuant to Real Property Tax Law §§ 421-a and 489.

Real Property Tax Law § 421-g does not create another exemption to Rent Stabilization Law § 26-504.2(a). Supreme Court essentially interpreted Real Property Tax Law § 421-g(6)’s prefatory phrase “Notwithstanding the provisions of any local law for [rent stabilization]” to mean “Notwithstanding [the luxury decontrol] provisions of any local law.” However, “[a] statute or legislative act is to be construed as a whole, and all parts of an act are to be read and construed together to determine the legislative intent”… .Accordingly, the prefatory phrase, which also appears identically in RPTL 421-a(2)(f), must be read in tandem with the coverage clause of that section. The prefatory phrase and the coverage clause were both necessary to extend rent stabilization to certain dwellings in buildings receiving 421-g benefits. Kuzmich v 50 Murray St. Acquisition LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00336, First Dept 1-18-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC) (RENT STABILIZATION, APARTMENTS RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS PURSUANT TO RPTL 421-g ARE SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY VACANCY DECONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW AND WERE PROPERLY DEREGULATED (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NYC, RENT STABILIZATION, APARTMENTS RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS PURSUANT TO RPTL 421-g ARE SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY VACANCY DECONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW AND WERE PROPERLY DEREGULATED (FIRST DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW  (NYC, RENT STABILIZATION, APARTMENTS RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS PURSUANT TO RPTL 421-g ARE SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY VACANCY DECONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW AND WERE PROPERLY DEREGULATED (FIRST DEPT))/RENT STABILIZATION LAW (NYC) (APARTMENTS RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS PURSUANT TO RPTL 421-g ARE SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY VACANCY DECONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW AND WERE PROPERLY DEREGULATED (FIRST DEPT))/APARTMENTS (NYC) (RENT STABILIZATION, APARTMENTS RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS PURSUANT TO RPTL 421-g ARE SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY VACANCY DECONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW AND WERE PROPERLY DEREGULATED (FIRST DEPT))/LUXURY VACANCY DECONTROL (NYC, RENT STABILIZATION, APARTMENTS RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS PURSUANT TO RPTL 421-g ARE SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY VACANCY DECONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW AND WERE PROPERLY DEREGULATED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WAS ENGAGED IN AN “EMERGENCY OPERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 WHEN HIS POLICE VAN STRUCK PLAINTIFF AS SHE STEPPED INTO THE ROAD FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS; DEFENDANT DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED IN A MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT DURING RECREATIONAL USE OF A CITY PARKING LOT, CITY NOT LIABLE PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT).
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
Administrative Review of a Rent Overcharge Petition Should Have Been Granted; Allegations of Fraud Overcame Four-Year Statute of Limitations
In Responding to Defendant’s Criticisms of Defense Counsel’s Actions, Defense Counsel Merely Explained His Actions and Did Not Take a Position Adverse to His Client’s—Therefore the Defendant Was Not Entitled to Withdraw His Plea on the Ground that He Was Denied Effective Assistance of Counsel
WHERE DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS INNOCENCE AT TRIAL, HAS A PENDING APPEAL AND ASSERTS HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE SORA PROCEEDING, THE SORA COURT SHOULD NOT ASSESS POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 12 FOR FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION ON AN EVIDENTIARY GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLANKS AND CRIBBING COVERING AN OPENING WERE SAFETY DEVICES WITHIN THE MEANING... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN...