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

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.

In 2016, 30 current or former tenants of the 18 apartments brought an action seeking a declaration that their apartments were subject to rent stabilization, together with treble damages and attorney's fees. Tenants also sought damages under General Business Law section 349, which declares unlawful all "[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service." General Business Law section 349-a. The statute also creates a private right of action, provides for treble damages for willful or knowing violations, and entitles prevailing plaintiffs to reasonable attorney's fees. General Business Law section 349-h. Tenants alleged that landlord willfully violate the rent stabilization statute because landlord knew, or should have known, that high rent deregulation was not available for the building. Tenants contended that landlord had violated section 349 by representing to the public that the apartments were exempt from rent regulation.