300 Wadsworth LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2022 NY Slip Op 06311 (2022)

The declaratory relief sought by the landlord was properly dismissed as the landlord lacked vested rights in the pre-HSTPA rent laws governing IAIs (see I.L.F.Y. Co. v City Rent & Rehabilitation Admin., 11 NY2d 480 [1962]; cf. Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 NY3d 332 [2020]). Moreover, the landlord's IAI rent increase claims were not ripe. The claims are fact-based on such issues as whether work was actually done or qualifies as an IAI, and the record was insufficient to support a finding that landlord had an actual, concrete injury as a consequence of the enactment of the HSTPA amendments or that a hardship would result to the parties if the declaratory relief requested were denied (see generally Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew v Barwick, 67 NY2d 510, 518 [1986], cert denied 479 US 985 [1986]). As to the landlord's request for a declaration that the HSTPA amendments were unconstitutional as applied to the landlord's IAI rent increase claims, in that it would be deprived of, inter alia, economic benefits of the pre-HSTPA IAI rent-increase laws, the claim has not been demonstrated (see Matter of Schutt v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community [*2]Renewal, 278 AD2d 58 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 715 [2001]).