Agreement Regarding Coverage Is Void

(Decision submitted by Mitchell S. Zingman of the Manhattan law firm of Carb, Luria, Cook & Kufeld, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord sued to evict tenants after their lease ended. Landlord claimed that tenants were unregulated because the building contained only three apartments. Tenants claimed that they were rent stabilized, and asked the court to dismiss the case. They moved into the apartment in 1964. In a 1992 court case, tenants had claimed that they were rent controlled. In that case, prior landlord and tenants signed a settlement agreement. Tenants gave up their rent control claim and received a rent-stabilized lease. Landlord argued that the prior court settlement wasn't binding. A rent-stabilized tenancy can't be created by agreement if it doesn't exist as a matter of law. The court ruled for landlord. In the prior court case, there was a ruling that tenants weren't rent controlled. And the building clearly contained fewer than six apartments, so it wasn't subject to rent stabilization. Rent stabilization coverage can't be created by waiver or agreement when it doesn't exist by law. The prior settlement agreement also wasn't made binding on future landlords.

Carrano v. Castro: L&T Index No. 85442/04 (Civ. Ct. Kings 1/25/05; Fiorella, J) [7-pg. doc.]