where a tenant seeks to be restored to possession after eviction, since the
landlord-tenant relationship had already been terminated at that point, eliminating the
tenant's rights to reside in the leased premises" (id. at 522 [emphasis in the
original]). However, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (L 2019,
ch 36) has dated this observation in three respects. First, the HSTPA amended RPAPL
749(3) to make the "good cause" standard applicable to post-execution scenarios.
Second, the HSTPA amended RPAPL 749(3) to remove the provision that stated that
"the issuing of a warrant for the removal of a tenant cancels the agreement under which
the person removed held the premises." Finally, and most significantly, the HSTPA
severely limited an owner's opportunity to increase the rent through individual apartment
increases and eliminated an owner's ability to remove an apartment from rent
stabilization coverage through rent increases.
The changes regarding deregulation and rent increases surely shifted the premise
under which many owners operate. Rent stabilization often acted to keep rents lower than
that which an apartment could rent for in the free market. Pre-HSTPA, an owner of one
of those apartments might rationally desire for a tenant of subject apartment to vacate,
whether voluntarily or as the result of an eviction proceeding, so that the owner could
make certain improvements to the apartment that would entitle it to a large rent increase.
Depending on the rent at the time of the improvements and the scope of the
improvements, the increase could result in a higher (but still stabilized) rent or might
even allow the owner to deregulate the apartment and rent it for whatever the market
would permit.