Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(apartment stays )CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Petrolawicz v. Ando Realty LLC

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 1, 2026
Docket
Index No. 650815/22|Appeal No. 7109|Case No. 2025-06986|
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05611
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 2, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. : the tenants' complaint and granted the landlord's request for attorney's fees.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (apartment stays )

TL;DR

  1. 1Tenants argue their apartment should remain despite a 2011 rent increase.
  2. 2The court sided with tenants, denying the landlord's request to dismiss the case and ask for attorney's fees.
  3. 3The decision hinged on the landlord's inability to verify the legitimacy of its rent records.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Can tenants challenge the deregulation status of their apartment at any time?

    Holding · Yes, tenants can challenge this status anytime during their tenancy. The court agreed with this principle.

  2. 2

    Did the landlord provide sufficient evidence to justify the apartment's deregulated status?

    Holding · No, the landlord's evidence was unverified, failing to support its claims for deregulation.

Why it matters

This decision affects tenants in New York who might face questionable rent increases. It emphasizes the need for landlords to provide verifiable rental records.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Rent-stabilized or not? Tenants challenge big rent hike

  1. 1Tenants claim their apartment is still rent-stabilized despite a major rent increase years ago.
  2. 2The landlord says it legally raised the rent above the deregulation threshold back in 2011.
  3. 3It's tricky because the rental records provided by the landlord weren't officially verified.

Should the court recognize the apartment as and deny attorney’s fees to the landlord?

Be the first juror

Parties

  • Appellant

    Petrolawicz

  • Appellee

    Ando Realty LLC

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Petrolawicz v Ando Realty LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 05611 October 1, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Joseph Petrolawicz et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Ando Realty LLC, Defendant-Respondent. Decided and Entered: October 01, 2026 Index No. 650815/22|Appeal No. 7109|Case No. 2025-06986| Before: Moulton, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Michael, Hagler, JJ. Singh & Rani, LLP, New York (Bikram Singh of counsel), for appellants. Horing Welikson Rosen & Digrugilliers PC, Williston Park (Santo Golino of counsel), for respondent. [*1] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lori S. Sattler, J.), entered on or about October 7, 2025, which denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their cause of action for a declaratory judgment regarding the rent-regulatory status of their apartment and granted defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on its counterclaim for attorneys' fees, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendant's motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. A tenant may challenge the purportedly deregulated status of their apartment at any time during their tenancy, and the apartment's rent history may be examined beyond four years to determine whether it remains rent-stabilized (see Thurman v Sullivan Props. L.P., 226 AD3d 453, 454 [1st Dept 2024]; see also Liggett v Lew Realty LLC, 42 NY3d 415, 422 [2024]). Here, according to defendant, the last rent-controlled rent was approximately $620 per month, but defendant asserted a first rent following decontrol of $2,100 per month beginning in 2011, $100 above the deregulation threshold in effect at the time (see former Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-504.2[a], amended by L 2011, ch 97, repealed by L 2019, ch 36). However, the affidavit of a member of defendant's managing agent that defendant submitted in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment failed to authenticate as admissible business records the documents offered as proof of the foregoing facts. Accordingly, defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and its cross-motion for summary judgment should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 1, 2026
View on CourtListener