Pre-1971 Apartments Covered

Facts: Landlord's three Mitchell-Lama buildings were built in 1967 and 1968. In 1998, landlord withdrew from the Mitchell-Lama program, and the buildings immediately became subject to rent stabilization. The last rent for each apartment became the initial regulated rent under stabilization. Landlord then applied to the DHCR for rent adjustments for unique and peculiar circumstances under the ETPA, pursuant to RSL section 26-513(a). This section gave landlords of buildings that became rent stabilized under the ETPA 60 days to seek an adjustment of the initial rents. The DHCR ruled against landlord, finding that the buildings became subject to rent stabilization under the RSL, not under the ETPA. Landlord appealed. The appeals court ruled that since the buildings were clearly exempted from the RSL, they were covered by the ETPA. The DHCR, and tenant groups who intervened in the case, appealed. The question considered by the Court of Appeals was whether buildings previously constructed and operated under the Mitchell-Lama program were subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 by the RSL itself, or by the ETPA of 1974. Court: Apartments occupied continuously before July 1, 1971, were subject to rent stabilization under the RSL, and those in which there was a vacancy on or after July 1, 1971, were made subject to stabilization by the ETPA. For the ETPA apartments, landlord can apply for adjustment of the initial rents based on unique and peculiar circumstances.

KSLM-Columbus Apts., Inc. v. DHCR: NYLJ, 6/15/05, p. 19, col. 2 (Ct. App.; GB Smith, J, Kaye, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read, RS Smith, JJ)