You are here: / / COURT OF APPEALS 2009 RULING THAT LANDLORDS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS...
, , ,

COURT OF APPEALS 2009 RULING THAT LANDLORDS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS CANNOT DEREGULATE NEW YORK CITY APARTMENTS APPLIES RETROACTIVELY IN THIS CLASS ACTION FOR RENT OVERCHARGES BROUGHT BY TENANTS; THE CLASS, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXPANDED AFTER THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter too comprehensive to fairly summarize here, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the class action by tenants in defendant’s large housing complex properly sought repayment of rent overcharges. The complaint alleged the landlord, under New York City rent control and stabilization law, and pursuant to a 2009 Court of Appeals case (Roberts v Tishman, 13 NY3d 270), could not deregulate apartments while receiving so-called “J-51” tax benefits. The landlord argued unsuccessfully that the Roberts decision did not apply retroactively. The First Department remanded the case for recalculation of the overcharges and further held that Supreme Court should not have expanded the class. With regard to the expansion of the class, the court wrote:

CPLR 902 provides that a class action “may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits.” However, that provision also states that “[an] action may be maintained as a class action only if the court finds that the prerequisites under [CPLR] 901 have been satisfied.” Those requirements are generally referred to as “numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” (City of New York v Maul, 14 NY3d 499, 508 [2010]). CPLR 902 further requires the court to consider a range of factors before certifying a class.

Here, the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in expanding the class. The court’s order failed to analyze whether class action status was warranted based on the criteria set forth in CPLR 901 and CPLR 902. Conducting that analysis ourselves, we find that the redefined class represents such a fundamental change in the theory of plaintiffs’ case that expansion of the class would be improper. When the class was originally certified, plaintiffs maintained, and the court agreed, that its members were tenants who received deregulated leases while the complex was receiving J-51 benefits. The expanded class, however, would include tenants who never lived in the complex during defendant’s receipt of J-51 benefits, and who received regulated leases for their tenancies. Thus, the legal issues for this group of tenants are separate and distinct from those of the original class. Dugan v London Terrace Gardens, L.P., 2019 NY Slip Op 06578, First Dept 9-17-19

 

You might also like
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS UNDER STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY.
PARTY ADMISSIONS WERE NOT HEARSAY AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 ACTION; THE “PARTY-ADMISSIONS” ARGUMENT, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BEFORE SUPREME COURT, CAN BE CONSIDERED AND DEEMED DISPOSITIVE ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE LANDOWNER AND THE TENANT TAXI COMPANY HAD THE SAME PRINCIPAL, A HOSE WAS USED BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS TO WASH THE TAXIS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED ON THE WATER FROM THE HOSE WHICH FROZE, THE LANDOWNER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, THE LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY; ALTHOUGH BURGLARY SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE LESSER OFFENSE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THAT POSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY NO LONGER HAS THE REQUISITE CONNECTION TO RELIGION AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITIONS IN THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE PRIDE ALLIANCE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION AS AN OFFICIAL STUDENT ORGANIZATION (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR PART OF A LARGER COVERED ACTIVITY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ENSURED DEFENDANT WAS KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVING THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE BEFORE ACCEPTING DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA; IN THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT HE WAS DRUNK AND DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING (FIRST DEPT).
Plank Used to Access Work Area Not Covered by Industrial Code—Labor Law 241(6) Action Dismissed

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A PRIVILEGE UNDER WISCONSIN INSURANCE LAW APPLIED IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION CONCERNING... POLICE PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, WEAPON FOUND NEARBY PROPERLY...