Petitioner, Carlyle Johnson, commenced this holdover proceeding against respondent, Richard Crandell, to recover possession of the subject housing accommodation on the grounds that the unit is not rent regulated and that petitioner had opted not to renew the lease. Respondent now moves for summary judgment dismissal of the petition alleging that the premises are covered by the Rent Stabilization Code and that the petitioner did not properly describe the property in the pleadings.

The court finds that the subject premises are covered by the Rent Stabilization Code by virtue of the building being a Class B multiple dwelling that was erected prior to July 1, 1969 and contains more than six units (see 9 NYCRR § 2520.11; Yohanes v. McKeathen, NYLJ 6/15/94 31:2 [NY County Civ. Ct]["both class A and class B dwellings, including dwellings used for single room occupancy, are subject to the protections of the Rent Stabilization Law"]). Petitioner does not contest the building's class B designation, size or build date, but rather argues that the premises are exempt from rent regulation under 9 NYCRR § 2520.11(g) based on transient use. This argument is flawed as the exemptions delineated under § 2520.11(g) only apply to hotels hotel being defined as "an inn having thirty or more sleeping rooms" (NYC Housing Maintenance Code § 27-2004[a][12]). Here, there are only 12 units as indicated in the petition. Regardless, even if the premises do constitute a hotel, respondent's use of the premises cannot be deemed "transient" as he has resided in the unit for seven years thus qualifying as a "permanent tenant" (see 9 NYCRR 2520.6[j] [defines "permeant tenant", in regard to hotel [*2]occupants, as "an individual or such individual's family members residing with such individual, who have continuously resided in the same building as a principal residence for a period of at least six months"]).

Thus, since the petition erroneously states that the subject premises are not subject to rent regulation and the predicate notice of termination fails to state a cognizable basis for petitioner to seek possession of the premises under the Rent Stabilization Code, the petition must be dismissed. As such, the court need not reach respondent's remaining arguments.

Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in favor of respondent and the petition is dismissed.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: April 7, 2008_________________________

New York, New YorkDavid J. Kaplan J.H.C.

Petitioner's Counsel

Robert H. Goldberg, Esq.

Goldberg, Scudieri, Lindenberg & Block PC

45 West 45th Street, Suite 1401

New York, New York 10036

(212) 921-1600

Respondent's Counsel

Deepa Varma, Esq.

West Side SRO Law Project

647 Columbus Avenue

New York, New York 10025

(212) 799-9638