After reading Todd Soloway and Luisa Hagemeier’s excellent and comprehensive primer on the aftermath and fallout of the Court of Appeals decision in Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties (NYLJ, Aug. 29), I could not help but notice that a significant issue concerning the “four-year rule” and its application to issues of rent stabilization coverage has been ignored by New York’s appellate courts. Inasmuch as our firm has been involved in many of these cases, including Roberts, we have had a front row seat to what appears to be a troubling legal trend.
Specifically, as explained in the article, the jurisprudence that has developed around New York State’s four-year statute of limitations for rental overcharge complaints has led some appellate courts to conclude that there is no statute of limitations in determining whether an apartment is subject to rent stabilization coverage. In one decision, Gersten v. 56th 7th Avenue, 88 A.D.3d 189 (2011), the Appellate Division, First Department, held: “[E]xcept as to limit rent overcharge claims, the Legislature has not imposed a limitations period for determining the rent regulatory status of an apartment.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
