The motion court properly declined to dismiss the subject affirmative defenses and counterclaims pursuant to CPLR 3211(b), since the allegations of the answer, viewed, as they must be in this procedural context, in the light most favorable to defendants (see Grunder v. Recckio, 138 A.D.2d 923), state cognizable defenses and counterclaims. In this connection, the eligibility of the subject loft units for protection under rent stabilization pursuant to the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 is adequately alleged (see McKinneys Uncons Laws § 8625; Rent Stabilization Code; 9 NYCRR § 2520.11[d]; Tan Holding Corp. v. Wallace, 187 Misc.2d 687; Mandel v. Pitkowsky, 102 Misc.2d 478, affd 76 A.D.2d 807), notwithstanding the sale of Loft Law rights by a prior tenant.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.