You are here: / / CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE TENANTS IN THIS RENT-OVERCHARGE...
, ,

CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE TENANTS IN THIS RENT-OVERCHARGE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined class certification in this rent overcharge action should not have been denied. The tenants alleged the landlord unlawfully deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits:

Class certification was improperly denied. The determination of whether plaintiffs have a cause that may be asserted as a class action turns on the application of CPLR 901. That section provides that “[o]ne or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all” where five factors — sometimes characterized “as numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” … . The party seeking class certification has the burden of establishing the prerequisites of CPLR 901(a) and thus establishing entitlement to certification … .

Here, plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating the prerequisites for class action certification under CPLR 901 and 902. Contrary to the motion court’s determination, plaintiffs established numerosity and typicality in their initial motion for class certification. The allegations in the amended complaint taken with the DOF tax bills showed that by June 2017, only 8 of 100 apartments were registered as rent-stabilized. … [T]his Court [has] held that similar bills were sufficient to establish numerosity, i.e., the number of deregulated units. As to typicality, the predominant legal question involves one that applies to the entire class—whether defendant unlawfully deregulated rent-stabilized apartments while receiving J-51 real estate tax abatement benefits. Cupka v Remik Holdings LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00812, First Dept 2-8-22

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE CORRECT LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, PETIT LARCENY IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ROBBERY THIRD, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
WHEN DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN 2002 HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) AND HE DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA IN 2010 WHEN PRS WAS ADDED TO HIS SENTENCE; DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CONTEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 2002 CONVICTION RE: A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER DESIGNATION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A CABLE TRAY FELL ON HIS HEAD FROM THE TOP OF TWO LADDERS, A SUBCONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACT DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE WORK TO THE SUBCONTRACTOR, THE LESSEE WAS LIABLE AS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SOCIAL WORKER WAS MENACED BY A TENANT IN CITY HOUSING WIELDING A KNIFE AND SUED THE CITY; THE CITY WAS ACTING IN A GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITY; THERE WAS NO SPECIAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF BY THE CITY; THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE; SECURITY WAS ADEQUATE; THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
THERE WAS CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT, FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, BOTH WERE DEEMED INADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICES AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING SANCTIONS, I.E., PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS ORDERED TO PAY $10,000 IN COUNSEL FEES TO DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).
A REJECTED PURCHASE OFFER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL TO PROVE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

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

PLAINTIFF STARTED AN ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN NEW YORK; THEN DEFENDANT STARTED... PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED...