Stuyvesant Town Ruling Applied Retroactively

Facts: Tenants of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village sued landlord in 2007, claiming rent overcharge for the four years before they started the case. They also claimed that landlord improperly deregulated rent-stabilized apartments when rents reached $2,000 per month. Since the building was receiving J-51 tax benefits, tenants claimed that the apartments should have remained rent stabilized. The court ruled against tenants, the appeals court reversed, and New York's highest court ultimately ruled for tenants. The case was then sent back to the trial court. The prior landlord, Met Life, asked the court not to apply the high court's ruling retroactively. The court ruled against prior landlord, and it appealed.

Court: Prior landlord loses. Landlord argued that the court in effect created a new rule that should be applied only going forward, not retroactively. But the high court's interpretation of the law didn't create a new legal principle. Landlords had relied on the DHCR's incorrect interpretation of the law, which was that buildings that were already subject to rent stabilization before receiving J-51 benefits were entitled to deregulate apartments when rents reached $2,000.

Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, LP: 932 NY2d 45, 2011 NY Slip Op 07717 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 11/3/11; Tom, JP, Saxe, Catterson, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ)