In Roberts v. Tishman Speyer  (13 NY3d 270 [2009]), the Court of Appeals held that luxury deregulation is unavailable with respect to apartments in buildings receiving J-51 benefits. This article will explore recent case law addressing issues stemming from Roberts, including fraud, treble damages, rent freezes due to failure to register, and an owner’s right to seek luxury deregulation for stabilized apartments after J-51 benefits expire.

Fraud

Many tenants in post-Roberts cases allege that the owner engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment, apparently believing that owners should have known better than to abide by DHCR’s interpretation of law. The significance of a finding of fraud is that the tribunal, in order to determine the legal rent, can examine the rental history of the apartment prior to the four-year period preceding the overcharge complaint (see Grimm v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 15 NY3d 358, 365 [2010]). Breaching the four-year look-back period usually results in a lower rent and a larger refund.

This content has been archived.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 Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

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]