"current and former tenants of the Parkoff Buildings who, between June 7, 2013
and the present date, resided in rent-stabilized or unlawfully-deregulated apartments, and who
paid rent more than the legal limit based on misrepresentations by Defendants, or any
predecessor in interest, concerning legal regulated rents and improvements"
(id., ¶ 212). Plaintiffs also propose a sub-class (Sub-Class)
consisting of all current tenants in the Parkoff Buildings who currently reside in a rent-stabilized
apartment or unlawfully deregulated apartment (id., ¶ 214).
The complaint contains six causes of action for: (1) violation of Rent Stabilization Law
(RSL) § 26-512 (on behalf of the Class); (2) violation of RSL § 26-512 (on behalf of
the Sub-Class); (3) declaratory relief (on behalf of the Sub-Class) determining: (a) the apartments
are subject to the RSL and RSC; (b) plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are each entitled to
a rent stabilized lease; (c) the amount of the legal regulated rent for their apartments; (d) any
leases offered by defendants to plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are invalid unless they
are offered on forms and terms prescribed by DHCR; and (e) plaintiffs and members of the
Sub-Class are not required to pay rent increases until legal rent-stabilized lease offers are made
to, and accepted by, plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class; (4) violation of General Business
Law § 349 (on behalf of the Class); (5) illegality and mistake of contract (on behalf of the
Class); and (6) illegality and mistake of contract (on behalf of the Sub-Class).
Defendants' arguments
The General Business Law § 349 claim should be dismissed because it applies only to
conduct directed at the public at large, not private disputes between landlords and tenants. The