Landlord—Tenant—Rent Stabilization—Rent Overcharges—Apartment Stabilized Based on Acceptance of J-51 Tax Benefits—Post-’Roberts’ Issues—Rent Increases Based on Individual Apartment Improvements Could Be Challenged—Tenants Failed to Demonstrate Fraud—Mere Allegation of Fraud Insufficient to Justify Discovery
This case involved the issue, inter alia, of whether the subject apartment (apartment) “should be restored to rent stabilization [stabilization] because defendant [landlord]” had “ deregulated the apartment pursuant to the luxury decontrol laws while it was simultaneously receiving tax incentives under the City’s J-51 program … .” Following the “Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., 13 N.Y.3d 270 (2009) and its progeny applying Roberts retroactively,” the apartment was “returned to rent stabilization as of 2000.” The return of the apartment to stabilization triggered issues such as “the setting of the stabilized rent, the base date for, and the statute of limitations [SOL] applicable to, the setting of such rent, and the possible imposition of treble damages and attorney fees.”
