Court Affirms Amended RSL Applies to Dismiss Owner Occupancy Cases Not Decided Before HSTPA

In four consolidated proceedings, landlord sued in 2017 to evict rent-stabilized tenants in a six-unit building for personal use, in order to combine the apartments as a residence for his son. The court ruled for tenants in 2020 and dismissed the cases based on amendment of Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) Section 26-511(c)(9) by the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), which took effect on June 14, 2019. Under the amended law, landlord could now recover only one apartment in a building for owner occupancy and must show compelling necessity.  

Landlord later made a motion to renew and asked the court to look at the issue again in light of an appeals court decision that had been issued in the case of Harris v. Israel. In that case, the Appellate Division, First Dept., ruled in 2021 that the same reasoning applied in Regina Metro. Co LLC v. DHCR by New York's highest court to HSTPA Part F relating to rent overcharges applied to HSTPA Part I concerning owner occupancy cases. In Harris v. Israel, the Appellate Division found that the amended law had a "harsh and destabilizing effect" on a landlord's "settled expectations" and didn't have a "rational justification." That court ruled that the HSTPA amendments couldn't be applied to the case, which already had been decided in landlord's favor under the pre-HSTPA law.

But in this case, the court ruled against landlord and upheld its prior decision to dismiss the cases. The court noted that in Harris v. Israel, the housing court had already ruled in landlord's favor before HSTPA changed the law. But in this case, there had been no ruling on the merits before the law changed. So this case was different because the parties' rights hadn't already been decided and fixed by the court.  

Karpen v. Castro: Index No. 87287/17, 2021 NY Slip Op 21169 (Civ. Ct. Kings; 6/10/21; McClanahan, J)