Apartment Subject to Deregulation After J-51 Benefits Expired

LVT Number: #26056

Landlord applied in 2011 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant's rent-stabilized apartment. The DRA ruled for landlord because the rent was $2,000 or more per month and tenant's household income for both 2009 and 2010 was over $175,000. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant claimed that his apartment wasn't subject to luxury deregulation because the building received J-51 tax benefits. But the J-51 benefits had expired before landlord filed its deregulation application. And the building was otherwise subject to rent stabilization.

Landlord applied in 2011 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant's rent-stabilized apartment. The DRA ruled for landlord because the rent was $2,000 or more per month and tenant's household income for both 2009 and 2010 was over $175,000. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant claimed that his apartment wasn't subject to luxury deregulation because the building received J-51 tax benefits. But the J-51 benefits had expired before landlord filed its deregulation application. And the building was otherwise subject to rent stabilization. So the high-rent/high-income rules now applied as if the building had never received J-51. Tenant's apartment was properly deregulated.

Seamans: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. CO410017RT (1/20/15) [7-pg. doc.]

Downloads

CO410017RT.pdf2.81 MB