Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)

Citation: Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
Parent Document: Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2016-12-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4334594/bartis-v-harbor-tech-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,910 chars

In April 2013, 35 named plaintiffs commenced this putative class action lawsuit against the defendant on behalf of themselves and on behalf of hundreds of similarly situated current and former tenants of the complex. The first cause of action sought a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs’ apartments were subject to rent stabilization pursuant to the ETPA and an injunction directing the defendant to revise all leases in accordance with the rent stabilization rules. The second cause of action sought to recover damages for “promissory estoppel,” based on allegations that the plaintiffs did not assert their rights under the rent stabilization rules because of the defendant’s “promise [s]” to them that the units they rented were not subject to rent regulation. The third cause of action sought to recover damages and equitable relief based upon “illegality” and “mistake of contract” as a result of the fact that the plaintiffs’ leases contained “illegal, false and/or mistaken” provisions stating that the plaintiffs’ units were not subject to rent regulation. The fourth cause of action alleged that the defendant violated General Business Law § 349 as a result of its conduct in advertising the apartments as unregulated and entering into leases with the plaintiffs that provided that the apartments were not subject to rent regulation. The fifth cause of action alleged that the defendant had breached the implied warranty of habitability by, inter alia, failing to provide basic services including proper heat, mold amelioration, elevator service, water penetration abatement, garbage disposal, plumbing, and ventilation. The sixth cause of action alleged that the defendant violated General Obligations Law article 7 by commingling the plaintiffs’ security deposits with its own funds. The seventh cause of action sought to recover attorney’s fees, costs, and disbursements. The Plaintiffs’ Motion

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text