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.”
This content has been archived.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]
