Below are some questions asked by various tenants, and related answers provided by a lawyer.
- What’s a 421-g Tax Abatement
- What’s Rent Stabilization
- What can I get out of this
- Can a court over-ride the statute around penalties?
- There’s a clause in my lease indicating I have to pay all legal fees incurred by the landlord if I sue. What’s up with that?
- Can the landlord refuse to renew my lease?
- Will I be blacklisted?
- July 2017 Supreme Court Ruling
- January 2018 Appelate Division Ruling
- June 2019 Court of Appeals Ruling
Answer: A tax abatement is an incentive to a landlord to do something in exchange for decrease in tax for a period of time. The 421-g tax abatement is used in the conversion of office buildings to apartment building in New York City south of Canal Street. It specifically states that each apartment in the building is subject to rent stabilization for the duration of the 421-g tax abatement, and indicates that the rent stabilization continues even after the 421-g tax abatement is over if there was no notice in the original lease or lease renewal that the abatement was in place and the apartments rent stabilized.
421-g Tax Abatement (Search it here):
- 50 Murray Street: July 1 2003 – June 30 2017
- 53 Park Place: July 1 2001 – June 30 2015
Our argument stems from the landlord claiming high rent apartments are not included whereas our contention is they are. That appears to be what the “Notwithstanding” statement included in the law which is included here:
N.Y. RPT. LAW § 421-g : NY Code – Section 421-G: Exemption from local taxation of certain multiple dwellings
- Notwithstanding the provisions of any local law for the stabilization of rents in multiple dwellings or the emergency tenant protection act of nineteen seventy-four, the rents of each dwelling unit in an eligible multiple dwelling shall be fully subject to control under such local law, unless exempt under such local law from control by reason of the cooperative or condominium status of the dwelling unit, for the entire period for which the eligible multiple dwelling is receiving benefits pursuant to this section, provided, however, that for purposes of this subdivision, an eligible multiple dwelling receiving benefits pursuant to this section whose benefits are suspended, terminated or revoked by the department of housing preservation and development shall be deemed to be receiving benefits for the length of time such benefits would have been received if such benefits had not been suspended, terminated or revoked, or for the period such local law is in effect, whichever is shorter. Thereafter, such rents shall continue to be subject to such control, except that such rents that would not have been subject to such control but for this subdivision, shall be decontrolled if the landlord has included in each lease and renewal thereof for such unit for the tenant in residence at the time of such decontrol a notice in at least twelve point type informing such tenant that the unit shall become subject to such decontrol upon the expiration of benefits pursuant to this section.
Answer: A limit set by NYC on how much a landlord can raise the rent of rent stabilized apartments during a rent-renewal
For 1 Yr. Renewals between Oct 1 – Sep 30 (NYC Website):
- 2011 – 2012: 3.75%
- 2012 – 2013: 2%
- 2013 – 2014: 4%
- 2014 – 2015: 1%
- 2015 – 2016: 0%
- 2016 – 2017: 0%
- 2017 – 2018: 1.25%
- 2018 – 2019: 1.5%
- 2019 – 2020: 1.5%
Answer: Overcharge award for last 4 years; treble on the last two years, however, the new 2019 NY Rent Law indicates penalties can go back 6 years from the date of filing an action
The example for this is essentially:
The example for a $100/month – $1,200/year overcharge going back 4 years would be as follows:
- $1,200 overcharge refund + $0 penalty for each of the 1st and 2nd year, then
- $1,200 overcharge refund + $2,400 for the 3rd and 4th year
So the total would be $9,600.
Interest and reasonable legal fees spent to get this back are also typically awarded to the tenant.
Can a court over-ride the statute around penalties?
Answer: The Court cannot and will not override the 6-year statues of limitations and award penalties for more than 6 years from the date case is filed or commenced. The Supreme Court, in their ruling for 50 Murray/53 Park Place, outlined the formula for calculating penalties.
There’s a clause in my lease indicating I have to pay all legal fees incurred by the landlord if I sue. What’s up with that?
50 Murray and 53 Park Place leases have legal fee clauses that put the onus on the tenant to pay any legal fees that arise from the tenant starting an action against the landlord:
Answer: Paragraph 36 is interesting, but not necessarily incriminating [to the landlord]. It is to say the least indication that the landlord was aware of this issue, anticipated it, and attempted to dissuade tenants from bringing or participating in a lawsuit to compel rent stabilization status.
Answer: Yes. The landlord can refuse to offer a participating tenant-plaintiff a lease renewal. The landlord will not be able to bring an eviction lawsuit against such a tenant because I would be able to ask a Judge for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). So, while participating tenants may not have leases, there is no adverse impact: They get to stay in their apartment until there the case is over, paying the same rent.
Answer: No. Tenants get blacklisted only if they are sued in landlord-tenant court, not if we institute a Supreme Court action