By Eileen O’Toole, Esq., Contributing Editor
At this writing, there is still no finalization of pending amendments to the rent stabilization and rent control laws that were approved in June 2023 by the NY State Legislature. And the DHCR still has not issued amendments to the Rent Stablization Code and rent control regulations that had been publicly reviewed as of November 2022.
Meanwhile, courts and the DHCR continue to rule, with varying results, on landlord-tenant disputes over what constitutes relevant rent history documentation in cases where tenants allege improper vacancy deregulation and/or rent overcharge. In Nadler v. Carmine Ltd. [LVT #32766], a New York County court denied the tenants’ request that the owner produce rent history records dating back 16 years in order to justify individual apartment improvements (IAIs), finding the request untimely and noting that the owner wasn’t required to maintain records dating back that far under pre-HSTPA law. In Matter of Lucash [LVT #32775], the DHCR also denied the tenant’s request that the owner submit pre-base date rent history records where the base date rent couldn’t be determined. The DHCR instead set the base date rent using the Rent Stabilization Code’s default formula.
On the other hand, in Matter of PACST 1244-46, 1356 LLC v. DHCR [LVT #32762], the Second Department appeals court ruled that the DHCR reasonably concluded that the owner failed to support its claim for an IAI rent increase with adequate documentation, resulting in a rent overcharge finding. And in Chang v. Westside 309 LLC [LVT #32771], a long-standing lawsuit where the tenants seek class action status for overcharge and improper deregulation claims, a New York County court recently ruled that the tenants were entitled to pre-base date rent history record production where proof of preferential rents was involved and where the owner’s practices may have rendered the base date rents unreliable.
A New York County court has rebuked Airbnb and tenants who challenged new rules issued by the New York City Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement (OSE) in separate lawsuits decided by the same judge. The rules, which enforce Local Law 18 of 2022, require “hosts” to register any short-term rental listings by submitting information to the city and retaining documentation for presentation upon request. The court ruled that Airbnb had no standing to challenge the rules beyond their specific application to the company’s booking services.
The court was also unimpressed with tenant claims that the rules required them to understand too much about Housing Maintenance Code and other provisions requiring, for example, posting diagrams in their apartments of normal and emergency exit routes from an apartment. Local Law 18 and prior laws already require that any short-term (less than 30-day) rentals require host tenants to occupy the units while conducting these rentals. And, while the court questioned how effective OSE’s enforcement may be, the city pointed to large-scale violation of short-term rental laws as justification for Local Law 18 and the new rules. See Airbnb, Inc. v. NYC Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement [LVT #32772] and Arora v. NYC Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement [LVT #32773].
In an eviction proceeding based on tenant nuisance, a New York County housing court has raised the question of whether a tenant’s objectionable conduct requires a disability accommodation where a handicap is demonstrated. In River Place, II, LLC v. Hurd [LVT #32770], the owner sought eviction after a tenant violated a probationary stipulation to refrain from loud and violent arguments in the building. Medical records stated that the tenant had a bipolar disorder that was improving with treatment. The court ordered a hearing to determine if the tenant was entitled to an accommodation and, if so, what such an accommodation should be. Presumably, the hearing would include consideration of the effect of the subject tenant’s conduct on other building residents and how far an owner’s obligations can reasonably be extended.
While the number of cases involving stays of eviction proceedings pending ERAP applications has trickled down considerably since the application filing period expired early this year, a number of court decisions involving ERAP issues are reported here this month. Of particular interest is the court’s decision in Levitt v. Tietz [LVT #32776]. After awarding a Mitchell-Lama shareholder tenant over $20,000 in ERAP funds made payable to the building’s cooperative corp., OTDA claimed that this was a mistake and sought return of the money because the ERAP program didn’t apply to cooperative maintenance payments. The court viewed the issue differently and ruled for the tenant. The court looked to RPAPL §702 and found that the statute’s definition of “rent” included maintenance payments made by co-op shareholders subject to the Private Housing Finance Law.
