Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, 180 N.Y.S.3d 115 (2022)

Citation: Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, 180 N.Y.S.3d 115 (2022)
Parent Document: Liggett v. Lew Realty LLC, 180 N.Y.S.3d 115 (2022)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2022-12-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9328646/liggett-v-lew-realty-llc/ ↗

Full Text

924 chars

In Drucker, we held that a provision in a stipulation that violates the Rent Stabilization Law is void, even when it is beneficial to the tenant.[FN5] We should apply the same principle here and find that the 2000 stipulation, though beneficial for Mr. McKinney, is void. Our holding in Drucker was based in large part on this Court's recognition that "[t]he pervasive policy of the [Rent Stabilization Law] is to provide an adequate supply of affordable housing in the City of New York. . . . Central to the statutory scheme is preventing the exaction of excessive rents by landlords" (id. at 40 [citations omitted]). Accordingly, we held that an agreement to an artificially enhanced rent that may not harm the parties can nevertheless adversely affect future tenants, including by "subject[ing] the premises to luxury decontrol" (id.), and is therefore illegal. That is what occurred here. As we said almost 20 years ago,

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text