Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
In our opinion, assuming without determining that the subject apartment was, under the circumstances adduced, decontrolled prior to May 1, 1962, the facts that (1) it was not rented until after said date and (2) another apartment in the same premises had been previously decontrolled bring it within the purview of control under the City Rent Act, which was designed to remedy an actual and manifest evil and to prevent the practice whereby a landlord by moving from one apartment to another could obtain decontrol of a building, as well as the device of obtaining decontrol by multiple ownership (Report of Committee on General Welfare, N. Y. C. Council, dated April 10, 1962, p. 6). Nor is the fact that different owners were involved in effecting decontrol of each apartment, by reason of their occupancy thereof, persuasive of permitting decontrol of more than one apartment, which was the ultimate result sought to be proscribed by the City Rent Act (cf. Matter of Carey v. Gabel, N. Y. L. J., Dec. 7, 1964, p. 17, col. 3, affd. 23 A.D.2d 966). Petitioner acquired no vested right to the continuation in perpetuity of the law in effect at the time the second apartment was owner-occupied on the theory that the prior regulation benefits it. Nor did petitioner have in any particular rule an interest so vested as to entitle it to keep the rule unchanged(I.L.F.Y. Co. v. City Rent & Rehabilitation Administration, 11 N.Y.2d 480; cf. I.L.F.Y. Co. v. Temporary State Housing Rent Comm., 10 N.Y.2d 263). In our opinion, the situation at bar lends itself to the applicability of such portion of the City Rent Act which excepts such situations from rent control exemption(Matter of Ritorto v. City Rent & Rehabilitation Administration, 25 A.D.2d 496).