By Eileen O’Toole, Esq., Contributing Editor
At this writing, owners of buildings subject to rent control and rent stabilization laws continue to wait for the DHCR’s issuance of amended Rent Stabilization Code and related rent control rules so that these regulations conform to changes to the laws made in 2019 by the HSTPA.
In addition, this month the New York State Legislature passed two so-called “Regina repealer bills” that would modify the law’s rent overcharge provisions and affect protections provided to owners by New York’s highest court in the 2020 decision of Regina Metropolitan Co., LLC v. DHCR. Some uncertainty remains as these bills have not yet been submitted to Governor Hochul and her approval is not guaranteed. Meanwhile, some interesting court decisions continue to interpret the HSTPA and other provisions of law.
In Woodson v. Convent 1 LLC (LVT #32627), the First Department appeals court recently affirmed the Regina ruling that overcharge claims filed in 2017 (pre-HSTPA) were subject to a four-year, rather than a six-year, statute of limitations.
Housing discrimination issues recently were addressed by NYC’s addition of height and weight to classes protected against discrimination under the city’s Human Rights Law (LVT #32598). And, in Housing Rights Initiative, Inc. v. Elliman (LVT #32619), a Manhattan court ruled that a nonprofit housing advocacy group could sue a list of landlords and real estate brokers it claimed engaged in source of income discrimination against prospective tenants with CityFHEPS rent vouchers that would have covered the rents charged. Such discrimination would violate both NYS and NYC Human Rights Laws.
In Anderson Ave. Assoc. LP v. Services for the Underserved (LVT #32603), an appeals court ruled that a subtenant placed in rent-stabilized housing by a nonprofit organization assisting people at risk for homelessness wasn’t covered by the HSTPA’s amendment to the law permitting such subtenants to claim rent-stabilized status where, as in this case, the organization surrendered the apartment to the landlord. The court found that the HSTPA provision in question didn’t apply retroactively to court proceedings pending at the time it was enacted in June 2019.
In Audubon 27, LLC v. Serrata (LVT #32604), the Housing Court joined DSS as a party to an eviction proceeding based on nonpayment where processing of the tenant’s application for CityFHEPS rental assistance was delayed. The court found that NYC Civil Court Act Section 110(d), introduced in October 2019, permitted it to take this action, which it found was necessary to resolve the case.
New York’s highest court resolved a difference of opinion between the First and Second Departments in a combined ruling on two cases where tenants were killed in their apartment buildings by intruders intent on revenge (LVT #32608). The First Dept. had ruled without a trial that NYCHA wasn’t responsible for the tenant’s murder in a gang-related slaying, even though a building door was unlocked, because the attackers were intent on getting access. The Second Dept. had denied NYCHA’s request to dismiss a claim by the tenant’s estate after her ex-boyfriend got into the building and killed them both by setting them on fire.
The Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to send both cases back to the lower courts for trial. Since landlords had a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, a jury should decide these matters based on the facts.
