Pultz v. Economakis

• Decision Date: 03 June 2008
• Docket Number: No. 80.,80.
• Citation: 890 N.E.2d 880,10 N.Y.3d 542
• Parties: David S. PULTZ, et al., Appellants, v. Catherine ECONOMAKIS et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

890 N.E.2d 880

10 N.Y.3d 542

David S. PULTZ, et al., Appellants, v. Catherine ECONOMAKIS et al., Respondents.

No. 80.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 3, 2008.

Collins Dobkin & Miller, LLP, New York City (Stephen Dobkin, Seth A. Miller and W. Miller Hall of counsel), for appellants.

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York City (Jeffrey Turkel of counsel), and Rose & Rose (Todd A. Rose of counsel) for respondents.

Legal Services for New York City, New York City (Raun J. Rasmussen and David Robinson of counsel), and South Brooklyn Legal Services, Brooklyn (John C. Gray and Jennifer Levy of counsel), for City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court and others, amici curiae.

Borah Goldstein Altschuler Nahins & Goidel, PC, New York City (Jeffrey R. Metz of counsel), for Community Housing Improvement Program, Inc. and another, amici curiae.

Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York City (Sherwin Belkin and Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

JONES, J.

Defendants are a married couple who own a five-story, 15-unit apartment building in Manhattan. Six of these units are rent stabilized and each plaintiff is a tenant of a rent-stabilized apartment within the building.

In June and September 2004, defendants served two plaintiffs with notices of "non-renewal of lease," stating their intention to recover possession of all of the remaining rent-stabilized apartments on the ground of owner-occupancy pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2524.2(c)(3) and § 2524.4(a). The notices included a statement by defendants that they "intend[ ], in good faith, to recover possession of all of the apartments located on the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Floors" of the subject building for the husband owner's personal use as a primary residence. The notices also detailed defendants' plan for converting the floors in question into their own single-family dwelling.

In October 2004, plaintiffs commenced the instant action, seeking: (1) a declaration that defendants' plan violated the Rent Stabilization Law and Rent Stabilization Code; (2) an injunction tolling the notices and enjoining defendants from instituting any holdover proceedings in Civil Court based on the notices during the pendency of this action; and (3) attorneys' fees based on defendants' breach of the residential leases with two of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged that, consistent with the legislative intent to preserve rent-stabilized housing for persons and families that occupy such housing (see Rent Stabilization Law [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-501), "the [Rent Stabilization Law and Code] are designed to strictly limit those situations in which an owner is permitted to remove an entire building or all of its units from the stabilized housing stock." Plaintiffs further alleged that "removal of an entire residential building" or all of its rent-stabilized units requires authorization from the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) "and compliance with the requirements for demolition or withdrawal from the housing market."^* In June 2005, Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, barring defendants from taking any action to cancel or terminate plaintiffs' leases.

Subsequently, defendants, relying on 9 NYCRR 2524.4(a), moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plain language of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code unambiguously permits an owner to recover "one or more dwelling units" for personal use, without limitation or DHCR approval, as long as the owner demonstrates a good faith intention to use the units as his or her primary residence (9 NYCRR 2524.4[a]). Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on their first two causes of action.

By order entered April 14, 2006, Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' cross motion solely to the extent of entering a judgment that defendants violated the Rent Stabilization Law and Code by failing to obtain DHCR approval before attempting to regain possession of the entire building. The court determined that because defendants sought to recover all of the building units, 9 NYCRR 2524.4(a) was inapplicable, and that permitting defendants to recover all of the rent-stabilized apartments would conflict with the intent and purpose underlying the Rent Stabilization Code. The court also rejected defendants' arguments that plaintiffs' second and third causes of action should be dismissed.

The Appellate Division reversed, holding that defendants' plan to recover rent-stabilized apartment units was governed by 9 NYCRR 2524.4(a) ("owner occupancy" provision), not 9 NYCRR 2524.5(a)(1) ("market withdrawal" provision). We granted plaintiffs leave to appeal and now affirm.

"It is fundamental that a court, in interpreting a statute, should attempt to effectuate the intent of the Legislature. The starting point is always to look to the language itself and where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts must give effect to its plain meaning" (State of New York v. Patricia II., 6 N.Y.3d 160, 162, 811 N.Y.S.2d 289, 844 N.E.2d 743 [2006] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see also Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 N.Y.2d 577, 583, 673 N.Y.S.2d 966, 696 N.E.2d 978 [1998]).

Read together, the plain...