Court, Not DHCR, Should Address Wrongful Deregulation Issues in Class Action

March 1, 2011

LVT Number: #23255

Tenants of an Upper East Side building brought a class action lawsuit against landlord, claiming wrongful deregulation of rent-stabilized apartments. They claimed that landlord and prior landlord had been receiving J-51 tax benefits since 1997. The court dismissed the case, finding that the DHCR had primary authority to decide the questions raised by tenants. Tenants appealed, and the case was reopened. The case presented legal issues left unanswered by New York's highest court in the case ofRoberts v.

Tenants of an Upper East Side building brought a class action lawsuit against landlord, claiming wrongful deregulation of rent-stabilized apartments. They claimed that landlord and prior landlord had been receiving J-51 tax benefits since 1997. The court dismissed the case, finding that the DHCR had primary authority to decide the questions raised by tenants. Tenants appealed, and the case was reopened. The case presented legal issues left unanswered by New York's highest court in the case ofRoberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, LP, including whether that decision should be applied retroactively or prospectively. The courts, not the DHCR, should address these issues in the first instance.

Gerard v. Clermont York Associates: Index No. 101150/10 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 2/15/11; Gonzalez, PJ, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam, JJ)

Topics

More like this