Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Photo: Bigstock

This article is the first in a series examining developments in rent overcharge litigation, which has mushroomed in New York County in the decade since the Court of Appeals upheld the Appellate Division, First Department’s decision in Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., 62 A.D.3d 71 (1st Dep’t 2009), aff’d 13 N.Y.3d 270 (2009). That case voided the landlord’s illegal “luxury decontrol” of Lower Manhattan’s entire Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town apartment complex. See McK. Unconsol. Laws §26-504.3. The Roberts decision found that the landlord had improperly claimed a real estate tax abatement for the complex under the “J-51 Program,” which also forbade owners from deregulating any rent-stabilized apartments for as long as their buildings were enrolled in the program. See RPTL §489. It is interesting to note that Roberts was a tax law decision, and did not review any individual rent overcharge claims. Under New York City’s rent regulatory system, rent-stabilized or rent-controlled tenants normally submit such claims to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). In Roberts’ wake, however, it gradually became more common for tenants of improperly deregulated apartments to submit their (sometimes lucrative) rent overcharge claims directly to Supreme Court, which has concurrent jurisdiction over them with the DHCR. In the decade since deciding Roberts, the Court of Appeals issued a number of rulings on issues that arise in rent overcharge litigation. The court’s decisions fall into four main categories; i.e., those which review: (1) Roberts overcharge claims; (2) Grimm overcharge claims; (3) “regulatory status” claims; and (4) Article 78 proceedings. Space requirements dictate that this article’s review of those holdings will be brief and will omit excessive editorial content.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.