In Gordon v. 305 Riverside Corp., 93 AD3d 590 [1st Dept 2012] the First Department determined that the pre-2014 version of 9 NYCRR 2526.1 (a) (3) (iii) had no application to the lease at issue. The court wrote that the statutory "language necessarily presumes that the first tenant after a vacancy is offered a rent-stabilized lease" (id. at 592), and the lease in that case was not a rent-stabilized lease. Also, the court noted, the rent agreed to in the lease was not the regulated rent, was not registered as such with the DHCR (id. at 593), and "the record contains no information about how defendant determined the unit was subject to luxury deregulation" (id. at 591).