Apartment Wasn't Decontrolled Based on Vacancy

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Facts: Rent-stabilized tenant filed a fair market rent appeal. Landlord claimed that tenant's apartment wasn't subject to a fair market rent appeal because the apartment was previously occupied by the building superintendent and was exempt from rent regulation during that time. Although the super had been rent controlled before being employed by landlord, he was no longer rent con- trolled during his employment. So, when the super moved out, there was no vacancy decontrol of the apartment and it wasn't subject to a fair market rent appeal. The DHCR ruled for landlord, and tenant appealed. Court: Tenant loses. Under the rent stabilization law, apartments that were rent controlled and then became vacant on or after Jan. 1, 1974, are subject to fair market rent appeals. DHCR found that the apartment became decontrolled when the prior rent-controlled tenant became the super. It didn't become decontrolled because of the later vacancy. The super never resumed his rent-controlled status. The DHCR's interpretation of the law was reasonable.

Gibbs v. DHCR: Index No. 123290/98 (11/15/99) (Sup. Ct. NY; Sklar, J) [7-pg. doc.]