In Noto v. Bedford Apts. Co., 21 AD3d 762, 765, 801 N.Y.S.2d 21 [1st Dept 2005], the Appellate Division, First Department, summarized the Legislative intent and rationale behind the enactment of luxury deregulation laws in the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1993 (RRRA) as follows: Moreover, we observe that the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1993 was an 'attempt to restore some rationality' to a system which 'provides the bulk of its benefits to high income tenants' (Mem. of Sen. Kemp Hannon, 1993 N.Y. Legis. Ann. at 175). The Act recognizes that '[t]here is no reason why public and private resources should be expended to subsidize rents for these households' (id.). To that end, these rent laws specifically provide for deregulation of high-rent accommodations upon vacancy or when occupied by high-income tenants (see Administrative Code 26-504.1, 26-504.2, 26-504.3). Clearly, these laws were not intended to protect a high-income tenant who insists on rent stabilization for an extremely spacious multi-room apartment.... However, the legislative history is clear that the Legislature never intended to apply luxury deregulation to those apartments receiving RPTL 489 (authorizing the J-51 program) and 421-a tax abatements as part of the luxury deregulation laws of the RRRA. Specifically, Senator Hannon, the sponsor of the bill, directly stated: So long as there are tax exemptions or abatement[s] contained in Section 421 or Section 489, then the decontrol provisions would not apply, but once those abatements or exemptions end, and if the rest of the eligibility standards of this statute are present, then they would apply. (Senate Debate, L. 1993, ch. 253, p. 8215, Exhibit "Q" to the Cross-Motion).