Montera v. KMR Amsterdam LLC, 193 A.D.3d 102 (2021)

Citation: Montera v. KMR Amsterdam LLC, 193 A.D.3d 102 (2021)
Parent Document: Montera v. KMR Amsterdam LLC, 193 A.D.3d 102 (2021)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2021-02-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4855109/montera-v-kmr-amsterdam-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,226 chars

However, we have not extended this rule to cases decided after Roberts and Gersten. To the contrary, our jurisprudence holds that an owner may not flout the teachings of Roberts. In Kreisler v B-U Realty Corp. (164 AD3d 1117 [1st Dept 2018], lv dismissed 32 NY3d 1090 [2018]), we affirmed Supreme Court's declaration that the defendant owners engaged in a fraudulent scheme to remove the plaintiff tenants' apartment from rent regulation. The owner failed to notify the tenants that their apartments were subject to rent stabilization or to issue rent stabilized leases. The owner finally addressed deregulation only after its conduct was revealed by an anonymous complaint. We affirmatively "reject[ed] defendants' asserted reliance on a 'pre-Roberts' framework to justify their actions, given that the wrongdoing here occurred in 2010, after Roberts was decided" (id. at 1118). Similarly, in Nolte v Bridgestone Assoc. LLC (167 AD3d 498, 498-499 [1st Dept 2018]), we did not give the owner safe harbor under the pre-Roberts line of cases because the "defendant failed to promptly register the apartment and 30 other apartments in the building as rent-stabilized in March 2012, when the applicability of [Roberts] was clear."

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text