Tenant's Consumer Law Claim Should've Been Dismissed

Tenant sued landlord, claiming rent overcharge and improper deregulation of his apartment. He asked the court to rule in his favor without a trial based on documentary evidence. The court ruled for tenant, finding that he was rent stabilized and had been overcharged. The court denied landlord's request to dismiss tenant's additional claims for liability under General Business Law Section 349 and the NYC Consumer Protection Law. The court also denied landlord's request to dismiss the case as against the individuals who owned the landlord entity.

Landlord appealed and won, in part. Tenant proved that the vacancy rent increase and increase for individual apartment improvements (IAIs) in his apartment prior to his tenancy weren't sufficient to raise the rent above the then-applicable $2,500 vacancy deregulation threshold. Landlord charged an IAI increase for a building-wide electric upgrade. But this wasn't an apartment improvement and no increase for this could be collected without filing and DHCR approval of an MCI application. The lower court also properly denied landlord's request to dismiss claims against its individual members, who used their domination of the company to commit a fraud or wrong against tenant. However, the claims under GBL Section 349 and the NYC Consumer Protection Law should've been dismissed because tenant's rent overcharge claim involves a private dispute between one landlord and one tenant, and doesn't concern consumer-oriented conduct aimed at the public at large. 

Haygood v. Prince Holdings 2012 LLC: Index No. 2019-1546, 2020 NY Slip Op 05138 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 9/29/20; Friedman, JP, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Singh, Gonzalez, JJ)