the date of the first overcharge alleged.
Plaintiffs' arguments
If the court were to dismiss the action in favor of DHCR review, only the named plaintiffs
will be heard, and the hundreds of class members they seek to represent will be denied relief,
allowing defendants to profit from their willful failure to abide by the law.
Claims involving the J-51 tax benefit program are regularly granted class certification. That
the amount of damages suffered by each class member typically varies from individual to
individual is inconsequential because of the important legal or factual issues involving liability
that are common to the class. The claims of the IAI tenants also are amenable to class treatment.
Plaintiffs' class definition is not incurably flawed, and can be amended at any time before class
certification.
The General Business Law § 349 claims are viable because the allegations involve
pervasive and systemic deceptive acts and practices that impact a substantial number of
rent-regulated apartments in defendants' buildings.
The contract claims are not duplicative. In calculating damages for rent overcharges, the
limitations period of four years applies to the recovery of overcharges for rent-stabilized
apartments. For breach of contract, the limitations period is six years.
None of plaintiffs' claims are time-barred because there is substantial indicia of fraud. Thus,
the court can consider evidence to determine the legal regulated rent, even if that evidence
occurred more than four years prior to the filing of the complaint. Plaintiffs' allegations of
massive rent spikes in the buildings at issue are sufficient to deny defendants' pre-answer motion
to dismiss.
As long as the General Business Law § 349 and contract claims remain viable,