August 2024 Insights
By Eileen O’Toole, Esq., Contributing Editor
A Hudson Valley building owners’ group was recently granted permission to appeal the City of Kingston’s 2022 adoption of rent stabilization under the ETPA. In Hudson Valley Property Owners Association Inc. v. City of Kingston (LVT #33324), the Third Department found that the case raised a question of law that should be reviewed by New York’s highest court.
Owners had argued that Kingston’s ETPA adoption was based on a flawed vacancy survey and also challenged initial orders issued by a newly established Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) that would have reduced current rents. In 2023, the Ulster County Supreme Court upheld Kingston’s adoption of the ETPA but agreed with owners that RGB orders making blanket determinations that units were subject to a maximum rent increase and immediate rent reduction were unauthorized by the ETPA.
In early 2024, the appeals court upheld Kingston’s adoption of the ETPA and reversed part of the lower court’s decision regarding the RGB rent increases. The case will now proceed to New York’s highest court for further review of ETPA coverage in Kingston.
Several courts recently considered tenant claims that owners engaged in fraudulent schemes to deregulate rent-stabilized apartments while vacancy deregulation was available under prior law. In 1532-1609 Ocean Ave LLC v. Hertzan (LVT #33326), a Brooklyn Housing Court decision provides an extensive discussion of changes to the standards applied to examination of fraudulent deregulation claims under pre-HSTPA law, the Court of Appeals 2020 decision in Regina Metro. Co. LLC v. DHCR, and more recent amendments to the Rent Stabilization Law and ETPA at the end of 2023.
In Hertzan, the court held that common law fraud should no longer be the standard for determining fraudulent apartment deregulation and that the “totality of the circumstances test” was a more appropriate measure. As application of the recent rent law amendments continues, there likely will be further discussion of the currently applicable fraudulent deregulation standard in future cases involving questions of improper deregulation and rent overcharge.
Recent dismissal of eviction proceedings against a Section 8 tenant based on defective termination notices highlights the need to understand regulatory requirements before commencing actions against particular types of regulated tenants. In SK M Faizur Rahman v. Lewis (LVT #33343), a Bronx Housing Court dismissed a summary proceeding against a voucher program Section 8 tenant where the owner hadn’t included a Violence Against Women Act notice with its termination notice. The court noted that landlord’s position that this requirement applied only to project-based Section 8 tenants incorrectly interpreted applicable federal regulations that govern Section 8 tenancies.
The importance of understanding smoke detector installation requirements was underscored in Blackwell v. Triangle Sq. Corp. (LVT #33338), where a Kings County court found that further review was needed to assess a tenant’s claim that an owner’s failure to install a smoke detector in his bedroom was the cause of his injuries during an apartment fire. The court noted that separate Building Code provisions appeared to contain differing requirements as to whether each room used for sleeping purposes in an apartment required a separate smoke detector.