Amended Law Bars Owner Occupancy Recovery of Entire Building

Landlord sued to evict all rent-stabilized tenants in his building. Landlord claimed that he needed the apartments for owner occupancy purposes. The court ruled against landlord and dismissed the cases in July 2019 based on amendments to the rent stabilization law under the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA). [See LVT #30273.] The amended law barred recovery of more than one rent-stabilized unit for owner occupancy. Landlord later asked the court for permission to reargue his claim that the court failed to address the due process deficiencies in HSTPA. Landlord claimed that it was unfair and improper to apply the amended law to his case, which was already pending when the law changed.

The court ruled against landlord. While noting that no opinion of New York's highest court or the Second Department's Appellate Division had addressed the constitutionality of HSTPA, the Appellate Division, First Department had ruled in Dugan v. London Terrace Gardens [see LVT #30411] that there was "no constitutional problem" with application of HSTPA to pending cases. And, in the absence of any Second Department precedent to the contrary, the court must follow the First Department appellate decisions. Landlord also didn't show that there were matters of fact or law overlooked or misapprehended by the court in its initial decision.

Fried v. Lopez: 66 Misc.3d 1210(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 50048(U) (Civ. Ct. Kings; 1/13/20; Harris, J)