Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Landlord & Tenant
Failure to Register Precludes Landlord from Collecting Otherwise Lawful Rent Increases
Grady v. Hessert Realty, L.P., NYLJ 7/30/18, p. 17., col. 2, Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty. (Jaffe, J.)
In tenant's action seeking damages and declaratory relief due to alleged rent overcharges, both tenant and landlord moved for summary judgment. The court granted partial summary judgment to tenant, holding that landlord's failure to register the apartment precluded landlord from collecting rent increases to which landlord would otherwise have been entitled.
Tenant's predecessor paid monthly rent of $1,022.92 before vacating the apartment in 1999. Although the apartment had then been registered as a rent-stabilized apartment, landlord's predecessor failed to re-register in 1999, and leased the premises to tenant at a monthly rent of $1,450, an amount in excess of the permissible stabilized rent, which was $1,207.05. Landlord's predecessor and landlord renewed the lease annually with modest rent increases, so that in March 2016, landlord and tenant signed a renewal lease at a monthly rent of $2,050. Each renewal lease specified that the apartment was not subject to rent regulation. In April 2017, landlord's counsel advised tenant that landlord had elected not to renew her lease. Tenant then brought this action seeking a declaration that she was entitled to rent stabilization protections, and seeking damages for rent overcharges since 1999, together with treble damages and fees. Landlord then offered to renew tenant's lease, and to refund $4,626.15 in overcharges, an amount calculated by subtracting the rents that would have been permitted under the rent stabilization laws from the rent landlord had actually collected for the four-year period preceding tenant's complaint. Tenant did not accept the settlement. Both sides then moved for summary judgment.
The court started by rejecting tenant's argument that landlord's alleged fraud entitled tenant to collect rent overcharges beginning in 1999, despite the four-year lookback period of the Rent Regulation Reform Act. The court concluded that landlord's failure to register the apartment was not sufficient to constitute fraud. But the court then held that landlord's failure to register precluded landlord from collecting any rent increases from 1999 through 2017, when landlord finally registered the apartment. As a result, tenant was entitled to the difference between rent actually collected and $1,022.92 for the four-year period preceding tenant's complaint. The court then rejected landlord's argument that treble damages were not available because the overcharge was not willful. The court emphasized that landlord was in the business of rental housing, and could have checked the apartment's regulated status during its predecessor's tenure. As a result, tenant was entitled to collect $83,669.26 plus interest and attorney fees.
|Unlawful Entry and Detained Proceeding Requires Proof of Possession
Chappuis v. CUCS –The Kelly, NYLJ 7/17/18, p. 21., col. 1, AppTerm First Dept. (per curiam opinion)
In occupant's unlawful entry and detainer proceeding, landlord appealed from Civil Court's order restoring occupant to the premises. The Appellate Term reversed and remanded, holding that the record did not establish that occupant was in actual or constructive possession at the time he was kept out of the premises.
Because of his disruptive behavior, occupant was excluded from the federally-funded transitional housing program operated by landlord. Occupant then brought this unlawful entry and detainer proceeding, and Civil Court ordered that occupant be restored to the premises because landlord used self-help to evict him without providing the due process required by federal regulations. Landlord appealed.
In reversing, the Appellate Term agreed that landlord had failed to comply with the federal regulations' due process procedures for terminating assistance to a participant in a federally-funded transitional housing program but remanded for a new hearing because the record did not establish whether occupant had been in actual or constructive possession. If the occupant was not in possession, he was not entitled to relief on a claim for forcible entry and detainer.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.