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

1,252 chars

The Court of Appeals's decisions in Regina and Roberts require a conclusion that that Roberts overcharge cases are, in general, not fraud cases and the remedy for an apartment illegally deregulated while the owner was in receipt of J-51 tax benefits lies in the rent stabilization law, not in the common law. Consequently, "an overcharge resulting from improper (but non-fraudulent) luxury deregulation [does not] warrant[] anything but the application of the standard lookback provisions," i.e. under former CPLR 213-a, four years prior to the commencement of the overcharge action (Regina at 360). If the overcharge is proved, the tenant may recover an overcharge award (Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-516[a][2] [RSL]), compensating the tenant for actual damages. Although a tenant may also recover treble damages, a shorter two-year statute of limitations applies (RSL § 26-516[a][2][under the new law this is now six years]). Moreover, treble damages are not only unavailable where the landlord disproves willfulness: "a finding of willfulness 'is generally not applicable to cases arising in the aftermath of Roberts'" (Regina at 356, quoting Borden v 400 E. 55th St. Assoc., L.P., 24 NY3d 382, 398 [2014]).

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text