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

1,384 chars

We did not, in Taylor, disregard or extend the statute of limitations, nor do I propose doing so now (151 AD3d at 102 ["challenges to the level of rent charged must be made within [the] four-year limitations period . . . immediately preceding the filing of a complaint"]). We cannot, however, blindly use the free market rent charged on the date four years prior to the filing of the rent overcharge claim without further investigation (see Lucas, 101 AD3d 402). While there may be no fraudulent deregulation here, the landlord's error, albeit non-venal, still resulted in increasing a rent-stabilized rent to a free market rent well beyond what was legally permissible. As we observed in Gersten, "a tenant should be able to challenge the deregulated status of an apartment at any time during the tenancy" (88 AD3d at 199). The issues of whether an apartment is rent-regulated and, if so, whether the rent charged was legal under the applicable rent laws cannot be teased apart, because they are inseparable issues. In putting the apartment back onto its rent stabilization track, further review of the rents charged after 2003, when the landlord deregulated the apartment, is unavoidable (Taylor, 151 AD3d at 105). It is the only way to determine the legally permissible rent-stabilized rent that the tenants should have been charged during the four-year period of overcharged rent.

Other Sections in This Document (82)

Full Text