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

1,075 chars

We disagree with the dissent that there was a "mere lack of registration" and that there are "no facts" to support defendant's scheme to deregulate. The hallmarks of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate are present here.[FN4] Defendant deregulated the apartment after Roberts was decided and did not re-register with DHCR, despite receiving J-51 tax benefits after Gersten applied Roberts retroactively. During the four-year period preceding commencement of the lawsuit, plaintiff was still not given a rent-stabilized lease. Unlike in Park, where the owner promptly registered the apartment, defendant waited until 2018 to re-register the apartment, one year after the complaint in this case was filed alleging that defendant unlawfully deregulated the building's apartments — more than a decade after Roberts was decided and eight years after our decision in Gersten. Defendant's actions cannot be deemed to be prompt compliance. Rather, at this stage, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a six-year scheme to illegally deregulate 27 units or approximately 32% of the building.

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text