Tenant Not Barred from Claiming Loft Law Coverage

Facts: Landlord sued to evict loft tenant for nonpayment of rent. Landlord claimed that tenant was a commercial tenant. Tenant claimed that the loft was an interim multiple dwelling (IMD). Tenant also argued that the building lacked a certificate of occupancy (C of O) for residential use, in violation of the code compliance timetable for IMDs. Without a valid C of O, landlord couldn't collect rent or sue tenant for nonpayment. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case. Landlord argued that tenant couldn't claim Loft Law coverage. Landlord claimed that tenant had used the loft for commercial purposes since 1989 and that the Loft Board had ruled that the loft wasn't an IMD in 1994. Court: Whether tenant used the loft for residential purposes and with landlord's permission were questions of fact that required a trial. And tenant wasn't barred from claiming Loft Law coverage. Tenant wasn't a party and didn't participate in the 1994 Loft Board case. The Loft Board ruling didn't bar tenant's residential use of the loft.

Missry v. Ehlich: NYLJ, 6/11/03, p. 22, col. 4 (Civ. Ct. NY; Billings, J)