Landlord's Action Does Not Give Rise to Deceptive Practice Liability

Jeffrey Turkel's lead article in last month's issue focused on the Regina Metropolitan case, in which the Court of Appeals invalidated a number of provision in Part F of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), holding that retroactive application of those provisions violated the due process rights of landlords. On the same day, however, the Court of Appeals decided another case, Collazo v. Netherland Property Assets LLC, with implications for landlord-tenant disputes. In Collazo, the court held first that the HSTPA's provision giving tenants a choice of forum for overcharge complaints enjoyed retroactive application, and second that a landlord's failure to admit its violation of the Rent Stabilization Law in deregulating apartments does not give rise to a claim under section 349 of the General Business Law.

The Collazo Case

In Collazo, landlord had registered 18 apartments as exempt apartments that had been deregulated due to high rent vacancies. Landlord's building, however, had received J-51 tax benefits during the period between 1990 and 2016. In Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., 13 NY3d 270, decided in 2009, the Court of Appeals made it clear that high rent vacancy deregulation was not available for apartments in building in which a landlord was receiving J-51 benefits. Landlord reregistered the apartments as rent stabilized, but not until 2016.