Archstone Camargue I LLC v. Korte

Shulman, J.P.

(concurring). I join my colleagues in voting to affirm the order under review, so as to preserve the rent-stabilized tenancy here involved. Weighing all of the relevant factors (see Harvey 1390 LLC v Bodenheim, 96 AD3d 664, 666 [2012]; Parkchester Apts. Co. v Heim, 158 Misc 2d 982, 983-984 [1993]), I am not prepared to say that the motion court abused its discretion as a matter of law in determining that “good cause” (RPAPL 749 [3]) sufficient to vacate the warrant of eviction was shown on this record (see Bodenheim, 96 AD3d 664 [2012]; cf. New York City Hous. Auth. v Torres, 61…