230 Cent. Park W. Assoc. v Jhirad
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on August 18, 2011
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ
Respondent Rahel Jhirad appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Brenda S. Spears, J.), entered November 10, 2010, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition and granted petitioner's cross motion for summary judgment of possession in a holdover summary proceeding.
Order (Brenda S. Spears, J.), entered November 10, 2010, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Since 1971, appellant Rahel Jhirad and her family have resided in the subject rent stabilized apartment at the building premises managed and owned by petitioner. In the mid-1980s, the building was converted to cooperative ownership pursuant to an eviction plan duly filed with the Attorney General's office (see General Business Law § 352-eeee[c]). At that time, appellant and her now deceased mother, who were named rent stabilized tenants, were notified of the eviction plan, but elected not to purchase the shares allocated to their apartment. Pursuant to a "Conditional Rights" provision contained in the eviction plan, the period of time that non-purchasing tenants in occupancy were permitted to remain in possession was extended to April 5, 2004 -- beyond the three years specified in General Business Law § 352-eeee(2)(d)(ii) -- for those under the age 45, such as appellant; and for the life of those over the age of 45, such as her mother. In accordance therewith, several leases and extensions were executed by appellant and her mother through February 2007.
Upon the mother's death in 2009, petitioner terminated the tenancy and commenced the instant holdover summary proceeding against appellant on the ground that her right to occupy the apartment premises expired on April 5, 2004, pursuant to the terms of the controlling eviction plan. Civil Court denied appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the proceeding, and granted petitioner's cross motion for summary judgment of possession. We now affirm.
Summary judgment of possession was properly granted to petitioner. Pursuant to the conditional rights provision of the eviction plan, appellant, who did not purchase the shares allocated to her apartment, was permitted to stay in the apartment until April 5, 2004. At the time of the 2009 holdover proceeding, appellant no longer had any proprietary or possessory interest in the apartment based on the expiration of her interest (see Goodman v 303 Beverly Owners Corp., 184 AD2d 748, 749 ; Jerome Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v King, 147 Misc 2d 162, 164 ; see also General Business Law § 352-eeee[c]). As a result, appellant was no longer entitled to the protections afforded by rent stabilization and could be evicted (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.5[h];General Business Law § 352-eeee[c]; Goodman v 303 Beverly Owners Corp., 184 AD2d at 749).
Nor was appellant entitled to continued rent stabilization protection solely as a result of the issuance of rent-stabilized renewal leases or the registering of the apartment as stabilized in connection with this cooperative building, which "is statutorily exempt from rent stabilization" (546 W. 156th St. HDFC v Smalls, 43 AD3d 7, 12 ; see Heller v Middagh St. Assoc., 4 AD3d 332 ; Wassfam, LLC v Ude, 26 Misc 3d 90, 91 ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER ...