Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Maria Milin J.), dated August 11, 2003, which granted tenant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Maria Milin, J.), dated August 11, 2003, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court correctly held that notwithstanding the owner's purchase of a prior tenant's rights under MDL § 286(12), the loft unit was subject to rent stabilization protection under the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (EPTA) since the building contained six or more residential units (see 182 Fifth Avenue, LLC v Design Development Concepts, Inc., 300 AD2d 198 [2002]). The record reveals that after the purchase of the prior tenant's Loft Law rights under MDL § 286(12), not only did the subject loft unit remain residential, but the building had six or more legal residential units. Thus, tenant's rent regulation claim is premised on a basis independent of the Loft Law.

Wolinsky v Kee Yip Realty Corp., 2 NY3d 487 [2004], does not require a contrary result since the subject loft unit in the case at bar was legally converted to a residential unit under the provisions of the Loft Law. Thus, unlike the tenants in Wolinsky, tenant here is not relying on the EPTA to "foster" an "illegal" residential conversion or "undermine legitimate municipal zoning prerogatives" (Id. at 493).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court. [*2]
Decision Date: December 01, 2005