Independent 435 CPW Tenants' Assn. v. Park Front Apts., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01716 (2025)

Citation: Independent 435 CPW Tenants' Assn. v. Park Front Apts., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01716 (2025)
Parent Document: Independent 435 CPW Tenants' Assn. v. Park Front Apts., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01716 (2025)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2025-03-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10360824/independent-435-cpw-tenants-as... ↗

Full Text

1,205 chars

Defendant's reliance on decisions rendered in the wake of Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., L.P. (13 NY3d 270 [2009]) does not detract from this conclusion. Of these cases, defendant relies principally on Matter of Park v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 150 AD3d 105, 108-110 [1st Dept 2017], lv dismissed 30 NY3d 961 [2017]). There, like Roberts cases generally, the apartment was treated as luxury deregulated in real time (see id.; see also e.g. Regina, 35 NY3d at 350 ["Each of these cases involves an apartment that was treated as deregulated consistent with then-prevailing DHCR regulations and guidance before this Court rejected that guidance in Roberts"]; Roberts, 13 NY3d at 282 ["At some point . . . , MetLife, with DHCR's approval, began charging market-rate rents for those rental units in the properties where the conditions for high rent/high income luxury decontrol were met"] [internal citation [*3]omitted]). Accordingly, unlike here, the initial deregulations occurred under contemporaneous DHCR oversight, and tenants had an opportunity to challenge increases or individual apartment improvements (IAIs) as they occurred (see e.g. Matter of Park, 150 AD3d at 108-110).

Other Sections in This Document (32)

Full Text