You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
,

CLASS ACTION CLAIM BY TENANTS ALLEGING VARIOUS FORMS OF RENT OVERCHARGES PROPERLY SURVIVED A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND SHOULD PROCEED TO THE CERTIFICATION STAGE PURSUANT TO CPLR 902 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a three-judge dissent, determined the pre-answer motion to dismiss a class action claim by tenants alleging various forms of rent overcharges was properly denied and the matter should move on for a ruling on whether the prerequisites for a class action under CPLR 902 are met:

… [T]here is an element of truth to defendants’ suggestion that the class claims — particularly those based on the alleged misrepresentation and inflation of the costs of IAIs [individual apartment improvements]— may require separate proof with respect to each plaintiff. Along those lines, defendants note that the operative complaint “alleges overcharges for inflated IAI increases of [various] amounts” — 136%, 97%, 82%, 104%, 113%, 33%, or 254% for various apartments — which they contend supports the idea that the alleged overcharges are separate wrongs to separate persons that do not form the basis for a class action … .

That leads to the friction point on this appeal: are we to look at the common basis for a damages claim or the degree of damage alleged? On the one hand, if, as defendants suggest, the differences in the specific means of harm is considered — that is, if at this stage the Court contemplates nuances of how those overcharges allegedly were accomplished — then plaintiffs may struggle to satisfy the factual component of CPLR 901 (a) (2). On the other hand, as plaintiffs note, to focus on potential idiosyncrasies within the class claims — distinctions that speak to damages, not to liability — at this juncture would potentially be to reward bad actors who execute a common method to damage in slightly different ways. * * *

Here the complaint addresses harm effectuated through a variety of approaches but within a common systematic plan … , and its class claims should not be dismissed at this juncture. Maddicks v Big City Props., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07519, CtApp 10-22-19

 

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIR OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Although there was a dangerous condition, defendant, as an out-of-possession landlord, was not responsible for its repair:

… [D]efendant submitted the lease between defendant and plaintiff’s employer, which provided that the lessee was responsible for all maintenance and repair of the premises except for “Major Improvements,” which the lease defined as “any major repair (repairs that are not of the nature of ordinary maintenance such as local patches, caulking, flashing)” including “replacement of the roof, replacement of load-bearing walls and foundations, [and] repairs to the concrete floor.” We conclude that maintenance of the allegedly bent or defective metal strip was not a “Major Improvement[]” under the lease … .

Further, the record established that defendant relinquished control of the premises. The fact that, under the lease, defendant reserved the right to enter the leased premises for purposes of inspection and performing “Major Improvements,” is ” insufficient to establish the requisite degree of control necessary for the imposition of liability with respect to an out-of-possession landlord’ ” … . “[A]n out-of-possession landlord who reserves that right may be held liable for injuries to a third party only where a specific statutory violation exists” … , and plaintiff failed to allege a specific statutory violation pertaining to the metal strip … . Addeo v Clarit Realty, Ltd., 2019 NY Slip Op 07163, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

,

LANDLORD DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE LEASE REQUIRED THE TENANT TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW, THEREFORE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The landlord did not submit a copy of the (expired) lease:

“Generally, when a tenant remains in possession [of the leased premises] after the expiration of a lease, pursuant to common law, there is implied a continua[tion] of the tenancy on the same terms and subject to the same covenants as those contained in the original instrument”‘… . By failing to submit a copy of the expired lease in support of their motion, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they had no contractual obligation to remove snow and ice from the property … . Even assuming that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have a copy of the expired lease in their possession, the defendants inexplicably failed to submit a copy of a lease entered into between them and other tenants of the property, notwithstanding the deposition testimony of the defendant … that he has rented the property since he purchased it in 1996, that he entered into a lease with each tenant, and that the leases specifically provided that it was the tenants’ responsibility to remove snow and ice. Miske v Selvaggi, 2019 NY Slip Op 06765, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

, , ,

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

 

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL ON ICE ON THE RENTAL PROPERTY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord did not have a contractual duty to remove ice and snow and did not have actual or constructive notice of the icy condition on the rental property in this slip and fall case:

“As a general rule, an out-of-possession landlord is not responsible for dangerous conditions existing upon leased premises after possession of the premises has been transferred to the tenant. Exceptions to this rule include situations where the landlord retains control of the premises, has specifically contracted to repair or maintain the property, has through a course of conduct assumed a responsibility to maintain or repair the property or has affirmatively created a dangerous condition thereon” … . “[W]hen a landowner and one in actual possession have committed their rights and obligations with regard to the property to a writing, [courts] look not only to the terms of the agreement but to the parties’ course of conduct . . . to determine whether the landowner in fact surrendered control over the property such that the landowner’s duty is extinguished as a matter of law” … . However, the fact that a landlord “retain[s] the right to visit the premises, or even to approve alterations, additions or improvements, is insufficient to establish the requisite degree of control necessary for the imposition of liability with respect to an out-of-possession landlord” … .

… “[W]ithout notice of a specific dangerous condition, an out-of-possession landlord cannot be faulted for failing to repair or otherwise rectify it” … . “Accordingly, the [ultimate] burden is on the plaintiff to prove actual or constructive notice and a reasonable opportunity to repair or remedy the dangerous condition” … . Rose v Kozak, 2019 NY Slip Op 06559, Third Dept 9-12-19

 

, ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AND VILLAGE REGULATIONS, THE HERKIMER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AS THE OWNER OF PROPERTY ABANDONED BY THE TENANT, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNPAID WATER CHARGES INCURRED BY THE TENANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined Herkimer County Industrial Development Agency (HCIDA) as the owner of property which had been abandoned by the tenant was responsible to the Village for water charges incurred by the tenant:

… [W]here, as here, an owner “consents to the tenant’s using water in [a] building, supplied through pipes installed by the owner, or continued by the owner, for the purpose of connecting the building with the [municipality’s] water main, the owner assents to the [municipality’s] supplying water to the tenant for use in the building” … . In the case before us, it appears that the water pipes of the facility that were connected to the Village’s water mains “were installed by the owner of the [facility], if not by the present owner, [HCIDA], then by [its] predecessor in title and the connection was never shut off or disconnected by [HCIDA],” and we note that “[t]he only purpose of maintaining a connection between [the facility] and the [Village’s] water mains [was] to have the [Village] supply the [facility] with water”… . Moreover, the lease contemplated that the tenant would incur utility charges as part of its operation, use, and occupancy of the leased facility. “When such assent [to] or arrangement [for the tenant’s use of water] is made, it must be deemed to be made with a view to the existing law” … . We therefore must evaluate the existing law at the time of HCIDA’s assent to the Village supplying water to the tenant in order to determine whether liability for the unpaid water rents may be imposed upon HCIDA. …

… [U]nder the section entitled “Liability for Water Service,” Rule No. 7 of the [Village] regulations provides that “[a]ll bills, whether for use of water or repairs to water service, are a charge against the owner of the premises or property where the water is used, and said bills will be rendered to the owner or occupant of said premises.” Under the same section, Rule No. 8 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll bills for the use of water become due and payable and are a lien on the premises where the water is used” and that “[f]ailure to receive bills for said water services . . . does not relieve the owner and/or consumer from liability to pay.” … Upon construing the regulations as a whole and according to the ordinary and plain meaning of the words therein, we conclude that the regulations provide for the imposition of liability on property owners for water consumed on such property and supplied by the Village.  Herkimer County Indus. Dev. Agency v Village of Herkimer, 2019 NY Slip Op 06237, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, , ,

REFUSING SECTION 8 VOUCHERS AS RENT PAYMENT VIOLATES THE WEST SENECA FAIR HOUSING CODE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, reinstated a permanent injunction prohibiting the landlord from refusing “Section 8” vouchers for rent, The refusal violated the West Seneca Fair Housing Code (WSFHC) which prohibits discrimination based upon a person’s source of income:

WSFHC § 71-3 (A) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful . . . [t]o refuse to sell or rent or refuse to negotiate for the sale or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap, national origin, source of income or because the person has a child or children” (emphasis added). Remedial legislation such as WSFHC § 71-3 (A) ” should be liberally construed to carry out the reforms intended and to promote justice’ ” … . ” A liberal construction . . . is one [that] is in the interest of those whose rights are to be protected, and if a case is within the beneficial intention of a remedial act it is deemed within the statute [or ordinance], though actually it is not within the letter of the law’ ” … .

We conclude … that Section 8 vouchers constitute a “source of income” under WSFHC § 71-3 (A). Such vouchers are plainly a recurrent benefit, measured in terms of money, that constitute financial gain to the recipient. Although the term “source of income” is undefined in the WSFHC, similar ordinances enacted in other local codes have expressly included Section 8 vouchers as a source of income … , which suggests that such vouchers are a “source of income” under the broad language of the WSFHC. People v Ivybrooke Equity Enters., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06299, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE, WAS NOT AN ‘OWNER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) OR 241 (6) AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant M & M was not a property owner in the context of Labor Law 240 (1) or 241 (6) and therefore was entitled to summary judgment. The Fourth Department noted that an issue on which Supreme Court reserved decision is not appealable:

For purposes of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) liability, “the term owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a [party] who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for [its] benefit’ ” … . ” [The owner] is the party who, as a practical matter, has the right to hire or fire subcontractors and to insist that proper safety practices are followed’ ” … . “The key factor in determining whether a non-titleholder is an owner’ is the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed and it is the right to control the work that is significant, not the actual exercise or nonexercise of control’ ” … .

Here, M and M met its initial burden of establishing that it was not an owner for purposes of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) because its submissions established that “it was an out-of-possession lessee of the property [that] neither contracted for nor supervised the work that brought about the injury, and had no authority to exercise any control over the specific work area that gave rise to plaintiff’s injuries’ ” … . Thompson v M & M Forwarding of Buffalo, N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05875, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

BUILDINGS RECEIVING REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 421-g BENEFITS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY DEREGULATION PROVISIONS OF THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that “plaintiffs’ apartments, which are located in buildings receiving tax benefits pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) § 421-g, are [not] subject to the luxury deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL … .”:

The legislature’s intention, as reflected in the language of the statute at issue here, is clear and inescapable. During “the entire period for which the eligible multiple dwelling is receiving” RPTL 421-g benefits, it “shall be fully subject to control” under the RSL, “notwithstanding the provisions of” that regime or any other “local law” that would remove those dwelling units from such control, “unless exempt under such local law from control by reason of the cooperative or condominium status of the dwelling unit” (RPTL 421-g [6] …) … . The statute does not say that eligible units shall be fully subject to “the provisions of” any local law for the stabilization of rents. Put differently, the notwithstanding clause of the statute evinces the legislature’s intent that any “local law for the stabilization of rents” that would exempt the unit from “control under such local law” does not apply to buildings receiving RPTL 421-g benefits, with the sole exception being for cooperatives and condominiums … . Kuzmich v 50 Murray St. Acquisition LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05057, CtApp 6-25-19

 

BUILDING OWNERS EXPENDED SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF AN APARTMENT TO JUSTIFY AN EXEMPTION FROM RENT STABILIZATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined that the building owners demonstrated the expenditure of sufficient funds for improvements to an apartment to justify an exemption from rent stabilization. The opinions are too extensive to fairly summarize here. What follows is the majority’s summary of the holding:

On this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the record sufficiently demonstrates that defendants Windemere Chateau, Inc. (Chateau), the original owner of a residential building located at 666 West End Avenue in Manhattan, and Windermere Owners, LLC (Owners), the successor owner of the building, expended an amount in qualified individual apartment improvements (IAIs) to apartment 4K in that building sufficient to render that apartment exempt from rent stabilization. Should we answer that question in the negative and conclude that defendants imposed a rent overcharge on the apartment’s tenant, plaintiff Laura DiLorenzo, we are then asked to determine whether there was evidence supporting a finding of willfulness on defendants’ part in doing so, warranting an award of treble damages to plaintiff. Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude that defendants have substantiated their claims that they have made sufficient expenditures for IAIs performed in the apartment to warrant an exemption from rent stabilization and did not impose a rent overcharge. Thus, we do not reach the issue of whether defendants willfully imposed a rent overcharge. DiLorenzo v Windermere Owners LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04779, First Dept 6-13-19

 

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