In “Roberts v. Tishman’: What’s New?” (NYLJ, November 1, 2017 pg. 5), several recent cases concerning unlawful deregulation under Roberts v. Tishman are addressed. However, it is important to add a crucial holding from the Taylor v. 72A Realty Associates case (1501 AD3d 95, 1st Dept. 2017) that is discussed in the article.

What is now plain from the Taylor ruling (Gische, J.) is that whether landlords unlawfully deregulated an apartment based on just a misapprehension of the law, or did so fraudulently, the courts will permit an examination of the rent history for a period of more than four years prior to the filing of an overcharge complaint in order to determine the legal rent for the apartment and to calculate the overcharge as the courts cannot “reconcile a mechanical application of CPLR 213-a [the four year statute of limitations for overcharge complaints] and give effect as to the retroactive application of Roberts, as we must (Gersten, 88 AD3d at 198)***”

This content has been archived.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]