Court Watch

RSS

A lawsuit by owner organizations Rent Stabilization Association (RSA), Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP), and the Small Property Owners of New York (SPONY), as well as individual property owners, was filed early this year in Brooklyn State Supreme Court to challenge the January 2014 amendments to the Rent Stabilization Code, as well as the creation of the DHCR’s Tenant Protection Unit (TPU). The court recently denied the DHCR’s motion to dismiss the case, and granted the owners’ motion for discovery.

The Appellate Division, First Department, ruled in October 2014 that, once a building receives J-51 tax benefits, owners are forever barred from seeking luxury deregulation of rent-controlled apartments, even after the J-51 benefits expire. Ram I v. DHCR, 993 NYS2d 706 (App. Div. 1 Dept. 2014). The same court came to the opposite decision concerning rent-stabilized apartments in the earlier case of Shiffrin v. Lawlor [101 A.D.3d 456 (1st Dept. 2012)].

In October 2014, New York’s highest court heard arguments on three cases that raise the question as to whether tenants can pursue class action lawsuits against owners based on claims of unlawful deregulation while the buildings received J-51 tax benefits. In each case the Appellate Division, First Department, had ruled that the statute generally prohibiting a class action to recover a penalty did not bar tenants from suing as a class to recover rent overcharges based on unlawful deregulation.

The problem of mold recently got more dangerous for New York owners. Four years ago, a key appellate court decision in Manhattan blocked millions of dollars in legal claims for damages for the health effects of mold in buildings, saying that the scientific evidence that mold caused illness was in dispute.

But that conclusion was recently overturned by a split 3-2 decision by another five-judge panel in the same court. The panel found that the scientific literature was now “indicative of a causal relationship.”

On March 24, 2011, the NYS Court of Appeals ruled that the NYC Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) had the power to impose extra increases on long-term tenants of low-rent apartments. The issue dates back to 2008, when the RGB passed a measure in Orders Nos. 40 and 41 to allow owners of rent-stabilized apartments to raise rents by up to 4.5 percent for one-year leases, and 8.5 percent for two-year leases.

A recent court decision could affect the ability of owners of former Mitchell-Lama buildings to convert thousands of apartments citywide to market-rate rents.

On Oct. 19, 2010, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, issued two decisions substantially weakening the “four-year rule” on overcharge cases. The rule prevents the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) from investigating rent overcharge complaints by looking at what the apartment's rent was more than four years before the date the complaint was filed.

As Stuyvesant Town gets ready for foreclosure, a judge recently ruled that current owner Tishman Speyer and past owner MetLife must pay back tenants retroactive rent rollbacks. In other words, the tenants are entitled to be reimbursed for years of rent overcharges on apartments whose rents were unlawfully deregulated.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett from earlier this year may have a significant impact on how you handle future labor disputes with your unionized employees. According to attorney William Hummell, a partner at Kucker and Bruh LLP, employers of union employees can now enforce the alternative dispute resolution or arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement rather than have an employment issue, such as a discrimination claim, resolved through protracted federal litigation.

A Second Department Supreme Court judge recently declined to dismiss a case brought by the family of a toddler who was scalded during a kitchen sink bath. The toddler received first- and second-degree burns after he turned on a lever controlling the kitchen sink water while his mother was busy mopping the floor of water from the bath. In declining to dismiss the case, the judge effectively ruled that a building owner cannot disclaim any duty to regulate hot water to tenants [Velez v. Geomar Realty, July 2009].