On the morning of April 28, 2015, the Appellate Division, First Department quietly released more than 40 decisions. At the top of the alphabetical list was Altman v. 285 W. Fourth LLC1—a case that seemed to crater the landscape of high-rent luxury deregulation as it existed prior to the Rent Act of 2015.2 Distilled down to its simplest form, Altman was a decision that eliminated post-vacancy deregulation (deregulating an apartment after it became vacant by lawfully raising the post-vacancy rent above the deregulation threshold). I will discuss the possible implications of Altman later in this article.
But first, some developments on the horizon could stem the Altman tide. Specifically, the Appellate Term, First Department, issued a decision on Nov. 12, 2015, in the case of Aimco 322 East 61st Street, LLC v. Brosius3in which the court refused to apply the holding of Altman. The case was notable in that the Appellate Term was explicitly rejecting the application of a higher court precedent—a rare but not an unprecedented event.
This content has been archived.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]
