—[*1] Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., New York City (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for appellants.

Grimble & LoGuidice, LLC, New York City (Robert Grimble of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered January 10, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim for restoration to her rent-controlled apartment and cancelling plaintiff's notice of pendency, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants presented no evidence that they sought a certificate of eviction from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal before unilaterally deciding to demolish the building that housed plaintiff's rent-regulated apartment (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-408 [b]; Sohn v Calderon, 78 NY2d 755, 764-765 [1991]). Moreover, plaintiff's evidence of defendants' harassment raised factual issues as to the alleged necessity of the demolition.

Since, as a rent-controlled tenant seeking restoration to her apartment pursuant to Administrative Code § 26-408, plaintiff has asserted a possessory right affecting real property, her notice of pendency was properly filed (see CPLR 6501; 220 E. 56th St. Corp. v Excelsior Sav. Bank, 253 App Div 345 [1938]; Lafayette Forwarding Co., Inc. v Rothbart Garage Operators, Inc., 205 App Div 247, 249-250 [1923]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.