Bryant Ave. Tenants' Ass'n v. Koch

• Decision Date: 24 March 1988
• Citation: 71 N.Y.2d 856,527 N.Y.S.2d 743,522 N.E.2d 1041
• Parties: , 522 N.E.2d 1041 BRYANT AVENUE TENANTS' ASSOCIATION et al., Respondents, v. Edward I. KOCH, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Appellants, New York City Rent Stabilization Association, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 743

527 N.Y.S.2d 743

71 N.Y.2d 856, 522 N.E.2d 1041

BRYANT AVENUE TENANTS' ASSOCIATION et al., Respondents, v. Edward I. KOCH, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Appellants New York City Rent Stabilization Association, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 24, 1988.

Peter L. Zimroth, Corp. Counsel (Elizabeth I. Freedman and Francis F. Caputo, New York City, of counsel), for Edward I. Koch, as Mayor of the City of New York and others, appellants.

Iris J. Korman, New York City, and Dennis Hasher, for Div. of Housing and Community Renewal and others, appellants.

Jonathan J. Silbermann and Steven Di Joseph, New York City, for J.F.I.B. Realty Corp. and another, appellants.

Andrew Scherer, Scott A. Rosenberg and John E. Kirklin, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.

New York City Rent Stabilization Association, respondent, precluded.

Andrea T. Novick and Michael R. Finder, New York City, for Franz S. Leichter and others, amici curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 127 A.D.2d 470, 511 N.Y.S.2d 279, should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

The motions of defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211[a][7] ) were properly denied. The courts below correctly concluded that the complaint sufficiently pleads a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983). Because the action was brought within the three-year limitations period of CPLR 214(5), the claims under section 1983 are timely asserted ( 423 S. Salina St. v. City of Syracuse, 68 N.Y.2d 474, 480, 510 N.Y.S.2d 507, 503 N.E.2d 63).

The courts below also properly rejected defendants' argument that the claims arising under the Rent Stabilization Law and the Private Housing Finance Law should be litigated in an article 78 proceeding and are thus barred by the four-month period of limitations under CPLR 217. An article 78 proceeding is not the appropriate remedy to attack the validity of the Rent Stabilization Code, which is a quasi-legislative enactment ( Matter of Lakeland Water Dist. v. Onondaga County Water Auth., 24 N.Y.2d 400, 408, 301 N.Y.S.2d 1, 248 N.E.2d 855). Plaintiffs maintain that this cause of action is governed by the three-year period of limitations in CPLR 214(2). We need not decide whether CPLR 214(2) or 213(1) applies because the action is timely in either event.

Further, we agree that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the joinder of Lydia Delgado, also known as Katherine Wender, and J.F.I.B. Realty Corp. as parties defendant (CPLR 1002[b] ). To the extent that their opposition to the motion was premised on Statute of...