Tenant Received No J-51 Rider

LVT Number: #27176

Landlord applied for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant’s apartment in 2013. The DRA ruled against landlord. The building had previously received J-51 tax benefits. Tenant’s lease didn’t contain a J-51 rider notifying tenant that the apartment would become deregulated when the J-51 benefits expired. So tenant remained subject to rent stabilization due to J-51 and wasn’t subject to luxury deregulation.

Landlord applied for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant’s apartment in 2013. The DRA ruled against landlord. The building had previously received J-51 tax benefits. Tenant’s lease didn’t contain a J-51 rider notifying tenant that the apartment would become deregulated when the J-51 benefits expired. So tenant remained subject to rent stabilization due to J-51 and wasn’t subject to luxury deregulation.

Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord argued that the building was rent stabilized even before receiving J-51 benefits, that it didn’t matter that tenant had no J-51 rider, and that high-rent deregulation should apply. But, although the apartment was rent stabilized in 1984, it became exempt from stabilization in 1997 due to high-rent vacancy deregulation. The building then received J-51 tax benefits in 1999, which placed the apartment under rent stabilization again until June 2010. The apartment would not have been rent stabilized either at the time the J-51 benefits were first received or at the time the J-51 benefits expired except for the receipt of those benefits. Under RSL Section 26-504(c), luxury decontrol provisions of the rent stabilization law aren’t applicable to tenant’s apartment.

 

 
305 Riverside Corporation: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. EN410023RO (6/3/16) [7-pg. doc.]

Downloads

EN410023RO.pdf2.88 MB