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

1,188 chars

There is no dispute that under the authority of Roberts, the apartment should not have been luxury decontrolled in 2003 and that the tenants were entitled to a rent-stabilized lease and renewals for the duration of their tenancy (see also 72A Realty Assoc. v Lucas, 101 AD3d 401, 401-402 [1st Dept 2012] [Lucas]). Even though permissible increases (i.e., for a vacancy, major capital improvements [MCIs] and IAIs) may have brought the rent over the luxury decontrol threshold in 2003, the apartment remained subject to rent regulation until the first vacancy following the expiration of the J-51 benefits occurred (Matter of Park v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 150 AD3d 105 [1st Dept 2017], lv. dismissed 30 NY3d 961 [2017]). The landlord would have been allowed to collect the rent, albeit in an amount over the threshold, but the tenants would have had the benefit of capped increases and rent-stabilized leases (Park, 150 AD3d at 111). There is also no dispute that in accordance with the applicable four-year statute of limitations, no overcharge can be awarded for any period before November 2, 2005, which is four years before the tenants' overcharge complaint.

Other Sections in This Document (82)

Full Text