Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (David J. Kaplan, J.), dated March 3, 2009, which, inter alia, granted tenant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding and directed a hearing in connection with tenant's counterclaims for rent overcharges and attorneys' fees.

Per Curiam.

Order (David J. Kaplan, J.), dated March 3, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by David J. Kaplan, J. at Civil Court.

Civil Court's consideration of events beyond the statutory four-year period (see Rent Stabilization Law [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516[a][2]) was proper, since it was not for the purpose of calculating a rent overcharge but rather to determine whether the demised apartment premises is regulated (see East W. Renovating Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, 16 AD3d 166 [2005]). The court's resolution of the coverage issue in tenant's favor and the resultant dismissal of the holdover petition was also proper, in the absence of any showing that the apartment was exempt from regulation under the deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law. As the motion court properly recognized, the claimed temporary use of the unit as a superintendent's apartment in or around 1999 did not serve to justify the "fictitious and impermissible" 300% rent increase subsequently imposed by the landlord. Further, landlord did not otherwise establish entitlement to collect a negotiated "first rent" (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2526.1[a][3][iii]), as the apartment was neither shown to be temporarily exempt from rent regulation on the relevant base date (see Rent Stabilization Law [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516[a]), nor first subject to rent stabilization coverage after the three-year temporary exemption period (see RentStabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520[f][2]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 20, 2010