Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2018 NY Slip Op 5797 (2018)

Citation: Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2018 NY Slip Op 5797 (2018)
Parent Document: Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2018 NY Slip Op 5797 (2018)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2018-08-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4527194/matter-of-regina-metro-co-llc-v... ↗

Full Text

1,299 chars

I respectfully dissent and would vote to uphold the methodology used by respondent New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) to calculate the rent overcharge in this case [FN5]. It is neither arbitrary and capricious nor contrary to law. The methodology applies only to those cases in which a landlord overcharged the tenant, albeit mistakenly, by removing the apartment from rent stabilization at a time when the building was [*7]receiving J-51 tax benefits from the City of New York. In Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., L.P. (13 NY3d 270 [2009]), the Court of Appeals made it clear that although the DHCR had endorsed the underlying practice of luxury decontrolling apartments under these circumstances, it was in contravention of the plain language of the various laws affecting rent stabilization laws. As we have previously recognized, in deciding Roberts, the Court of Appeals left open many important issues resulting from its decision, some expressly, such as retroactivity and statute of limitations, and some sub silencio, such as how to calculate rents for apartments improperly deregulated (see Taylor v 72A Realty Assoc. L.P., 151 AD3d 95, 101 [1st Dept 2017]). The courts and DHCR have since been working to resolve these issues in a consistent and just manner.

Other Sections in This Document (82)

Full Text