Reichenbach v. Jacin Invs. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02023 (2025)

Citation: Reichenbach v. Jacin Invs. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02023 (2025)
Parent Document: Reichenbach v. Jacin Invs. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02023 (2025)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2025-04-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10491002/reichenbach-v-jacin-invs-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,198 chars

Here, the rental history for apartment 4C listed rent stabilized rents prior to Kerner's occupancy that exceeded applicable lawful increases without listing any reason justifying the [*2]excessive rent increases in those years. Kerner took occupancy of apartment 4C on May 1, 2005. Yet, the July 15, 2005 DHCR registration lists apartment 4C as vacant. In addition, the 2006 DHCR registration lists the apartment as subject to "high rent vacancy" due to "MCI" (major capital improvement). However, Kerner swore in her affidavit that no work had been performed in the building during her tenancy. Tenants' counsel further demonstrated that, but for the unexplained rent increases preceding and at the commencement of Kerner's tenancy, Apartment 4C would not have been subject to deregulation when she moved in. Thus, tenants established a prima facie case that apartment 4C is rent stabilized. Since the owners failed to submit any evidence to the contrary, the motion court should have granted the tenants' motion on the first claim for declaratory and injunctive relief for a declaration that apartment 4C is rent-stabilized and to direct the owners to provide Kerner with a rent-stabilized lease.

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text