discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Tribeca Equity Partners, L.P. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal ( 96 AD3d 524, 529-530 [1st Dept 2012]), in which we stated that RPTL 421-a (2) (f) (i) “provides that after the expiration of the benefit, the building remains regulated but the owner may seek to deregulate apartments based on luxury decontrol,” is consistent with this plain reading of the statute, as providing for luxury deregulation of apartments regulated under RPTL 421-a prior to July 3, 1984, but not for those regulated by it thereafter (see Matter of RAM I LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 123 AD3d 102, 105 [1st Dept 2014], app…

examined Cited as authority (rule) Tribeca Equity Partners, L.P. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal (3×) Moreover, it is well settled that, because the matter before the court concerns the interpretation of interrelated statutes, “the deference we are required to give the agency extends to its interpretation of [those statutes]” (73 Warren St., LLC, 96 AD3d at 526-527; Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 791 [1988] [“DHCR’s interpretation of the statutes it administers, if not unreasonable or irrational, is entitled to deference”]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) AMT CADC Venture, LLC v. 455 CPW, L.L.C. (2×) Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 96 AD3d at 530.) Even if Real Property Law § 339-z’s legislative terms and intent necessitated reading the state statute together with related federal statutes to construe the state statute, however, such a reading does not alter Real Property Law § 339-z’s construction.

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dugan v. London Terrace Gardens, L.P. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 96 AD3d at 529.) When defendant’s J-51 tax benefits expire, and defendant no longer participates in the program, defendant may petition DHCR to deregulate defendant’s apartments.