Tenant appeals from (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Verna L. Saunders, J.), dated August 10, 2012, which granted landlord's motion for summary judgment of possession and denied tenant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding, and (2) a final judgment (same court and Judge), entered August 15, 2012, which awarded possession to landlord.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Verna L. Saunders, J.), entered August 15, 2012, modified to deny landlord's motion for summary judgment of possession and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Verna L. Saunders, J.), dated August 10, 2012, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the final judgment.

This holdover eviction proceeding is not ripe for summary disposition, since the record raises but does not resolve several material triable issues, including whether the apartment at issue is exempt from rent stabilization based on a high rent vacancy said to have occurred in 2005, and whether landlord's expenditures for apartment improvements during the year preceding the claimed high rent vacancy justified the increase of over $2,100 in the monthly rent (see 150 West 82nd Street Realty Assoc., LLC v Linde, 36 Misc 3d 155[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51753[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2012]). Consideration of events beyond the four-year Statute of Limitations is permissible if done not for the purpose of calculating a rent overcharge but rather, as here, to determine whether an apartment is regulated (see East W. Renovating Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, 16 AD3d 166 [2005]).

Contrary to tenant's assertion, landlord's delay in filing annual rent registration statements [*2]with DHCR, while relevant for purposes of determining the amount of collectible rent during the period of noncompliance, did not serve to freeze the legal rent in perpetuity or preclude the landlord from relying on the apartment improvements it allegedly made during the noncompliance period as a basis to increase the rent (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] §§ 2528.3[a], 2528.4[a] Matter of Yorkroad Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 19 AD3d 217 [2005]).

In reinstating the holdover petition, we do not pass upon tenant's application for discovery, which was not reached below. Our disposition is without prejudice to tenant's right, if so advised, to renew his application for such relief in Civil Court. We have considered tenant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 28, 2014