Citation Numbers: 114 Misc. 2d 999
Judges: Fraiman
Filed Date: 6/9/1982
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/5/2022
OPINION OF THE COURT
This is a motion for summary judgment by plaintiff tenant directing defendant, sponsor of a co-operative plan, to accept plaintiff’s tender of the purchase price for shares of stock allocated to an apartment occupied by plaintiff in the premises at 10 West 66th Street in Manhattan. Defendant cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. From the foregoing, it would appear that this is yet another typical case in the rapidly proliferating field of litigation involving co-operative apartments. However, what makes it atypical is that plaintiff tenant is Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) and it is the corporate identity of plaintiff which is at the essence of this litigation. 10 West 66th Street is a luxury, multistoried apartment building in which Con Ed has maintained an apartment for the use and convenience of its directors, officers and guests since 1970. The building is rent stabilized and Con Ed is a rent-stabilized tenant. In 1979, defendant as the owner of the premises, filed a preliminary offering plan (the Plan) to convert the premises to co
While conceding that the Plan limits the sale of apartments to individuals, Con Ed contends that such provision is unenforceable because it contravenes section 61 of the Code of the Real Estate Industry Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc. (Code). That section sets forth the requirements which must be met by an owner who seeks to convert a building subject to rent stabilization to co-operative ownership. The Plan in the instant case specifically states that it is presented pursuant to section 61. An examination of the pertinent provisions of that section discloses that Con Ed’s contention is correct.
Section 61 (subd 4, par [b]) provides that, “[a] tenant in occupancy at the time of the offering [of the Plan to the tenants in occupancy] shall have the exclusive right to purchase his apartment or the shares allocated thereto”. Con Ed was clearly a rent-stabilized tenant in occupancy at the time of the offering. It has been the tenant of record of the apartment since 1970, and had entered into its most recent lease with defendant in 1979 for a period of three years. That lease identifies Con Ed as a rent-stabilized tenant, and the Plan itself declares that every apartment in the building is subject to the Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of New York, ch YY51). Further, the phrase “tenant in occupancy” as used in the rent laws, includes corporate as well as individual tenants. New York City’s rent control law defines “ ‘[t]enant’ ” as, “[a] tenant, subtenant, lessee, sublessee, or other person entitled to the possession or to the use or occupancy of any housing accommodation.” (Administrative Code, § Y513.0, subd m; emphasis added.) “‘Person’”, in turn, is defined as, “[a]n individual, corporation, partnership!, asso