Woodson v. Convent 1 LLC

• Decision Date: 07 July 2022
• Docket Number: Index No. 160547/2017,Motion Seq. No. 007,008
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 32179 (U)
• Parties: HEATH WOODSON, DANIEL LARKIN, Plaintiffs, v. CONVENT 1 LLC, CHESTNUT HOLDINGS OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2022 NY Slip Op 32179(U)

HEATH WOODSON, DANIEL LARKIN, Plaintiffs, v. CONVENT 1 LLC, CHESTNUT HOLDINGS OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendants.

Index No. 160547/2017, Motion Seq. No. 007, 008

Supreme Court, New York County

July 7, 2022

Unpublished Opinion

MOTION DATE 10/07/2021

PRESENT: HON. ALEXANDER TISCH, Justice

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

ALEXANDER TISCH, J.S.C.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325 327, 330, 332, 333, 334, 335 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 317, 318, 329, 331 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER)

In this residential landlord/tenant class action, plaintiff-tenants Heath W. Woodson, Daniel Larkin et al. (plaintiffs) move for summary judgment on their amended complaint and to dismiss defendants' counterclaim (motion sequence number 007), and co-defendants Convent 1 LLC (Convent) and Chestnut Holdings of New York, Inc. (Chestnut; together, defendants) move separately for summary judgment to dismiss the amended complaint (motion sequence number 008). This decision resolves both motions to the extent set forth below.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Convent is the owner of a residential apartment building located at 310 Convent Avenue in the City, County and State of New York (the building), and Chestnut is the building's registered managing agent. See amended complaint, ¶¶ 1-2.

Plaintiffs commenced this class action regarding defendants' alleged violations of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code (RSL and RSC) on December 13, 2017. See class action complaint, affs of service, NYSCEF documents 4-7. On October 17, 2018, the Court (Cohen, J.) issued a decision denying defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' original complaint (motion sequence number 001) after having so-ordered a stipulation on June 22, 2018 which granted the parties certain interim relief (motion sequence number 002). See NYSCEF documents 90, 102. On April 30, 2019, this Court (i.e., Tisch, J.) granted the parties' separate applications to stay this matter pending the resolution of certain relevant litigation by the Court of Appeals, and also granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification (motion sequence number 003). See NYSCEF document 178. The Court later lifted the stay in an order dated July 1, 2019 (motion sequence number 004). See NYSCEF document 231. The Court subsequently issued orders (a) dated February 18, 2020 granting plaintiffs motion for leave to amend their complaint (motion sequence number 005), and (b) dated September 23, 2020 granting plaintiffs leave to further amend the complaint and to approve class notices (motion sequence number 006). See NYSCEF documents 245, 281.

Plaintiffs' amended class action complaint sets forth causes of action for: 1) various forms of relief for alleged violations of RSL § 26-512 (on behalf of a "class"); 2) various forms of relief for alleged violations of RSL § 26-512 (on behalf of a "subclass"); and 3) a declaratory judgment with ancillary equitable relief (on behalf of the "subclass"). See amended complaint, ¶¶ 75-95; NYSCEF document 256. Defendants' amended answer, dated March 10, 2020, includes 11 affirmative defenses and a counterclaim for court costs and attorney's fees. See answer, ¶¶ 96-112; NYSCEF document 277. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking summary judgment on their amended complaint and dismissal of defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaim on May 3, 2021. See notice of motion (motion sequence number 007). Defendants filed their motion seeking summary judgment to dismiss the amended complaint and for summary judgment on their counterclaim on May 4, 2021. See notice of motion (motion sequence number 008). The Court thereafter acceded to several requests from the parties to submit supplemental briefs in support of their respective motions. All submissions have now been received.

DISCUSSION

When seeking summary judgment, the moving party bears the burden of proving, by competent, admissible evidence, that no material and triable issues of fact exist. See Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 (1985); Sokolow, Dunaud, Mercadier & Carreras v Lacker, 299 A.D.2d 64, 70 (1^st Dept 2002). Once this showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action. See Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 (1980); Pemberton v New York City Tr Auth., 304 A.D.2d 340, 342 (1^st Dept 2003). Here, plaintiffs seek summary judgment on their two causes of action alleging violations of RSL § 26-512 and their one cause of action for declaratory relief, as well a summary judgment dismissing defendants' lone counterclaim.

Plaintiffs assert their first cause of action on behalf of a "class" composed of:

". . . all tenants at 310 Convent Avenue living, or who had lived, in apartments that were deregulated during the period when J-51 tax benefits were being received by the owner of 310 Convent Avenue, except that the class shall not include (i) any tenants who vacated before November 29, 2013."

See amended class action complaint, ¶ 49. They assert their second and third causes of action on behalf of a "subclass" composed of "all current tenants at 310 Convent Avenue, who currently reside in an unlawfully deregulated apartment." Id., ¶ 61. The definitions of the terms "class" and "subclass" differ from the ones set forth in plaintiffs' original complaint, which the court certified in its order dated April 30, 2019 (motion sequence number 003). See NYSCEF document 178. However, the Court's subsequent order of September 23, 2020 permitted plaintiffs to amend both the complaint and the class certification order to incorporate the updated definitions (motion sequence number 006). See NYSCEF document 281. This decision will review each cause of action in turn using the updated definitions. Before doing so, however, the Court must address certain preliminary matters that pertain to all three claims.

First, as noted, plaintiffs commenced this action on December 13, 2017. See class action complaint, affs of service, NYSCEF documents 4-7. As a result, so much of plaintiffs' claims as seek monetary compensation for alleged rent overcharges are governed by the provisions of the RSL that were in effect before June 14, 2019 (i.e., the effective date of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 [HSTPA]). Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 N.Y.3d 332 (2020). The relevant statute is the pre-HSTPA version of RSL § 26- 516 (a) (2), which stated that:

"(2) Except as provided . . ., a complaint under this subdivision shall be filed with the [DHCR] within four years of the first overcharge alleged and no determination of an overcharge and no award or calculation of an award of the amount of an overcharge may be based upon an overcharge having occurred more than four years before the complaint is filed. . . . This paragraph shall preclude examination of the rental history of the housing accommodation prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of a complaint pursuant to this subdivision."

RSL § 26-516 (a) (2). Pursuant to this statute, the "base date" for all of plaintiffs' rent overcharge claims against defendants is December 13, 2013; i.e., the date that fell four years prior to the date on which they commenced this action. Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 N.Y.3d at 348. That four-year interval is also the plaintiffs' "overcharge claims period;" i.e., the window of time in which the statute permitted a tenant to pursue a rent overcharge claim against a landlord. Id. The statute plainly states that a court may not consider rent overcharges that occurred outside of a permissible claims period. RSL § 26-516 (a) (2). As a result, this decision will not consider any claims that fall outside of the 2013-2017 claims period.

Second, as was also noted, plaintiffs first two causes of action allege violations of RSL § 26-512. See amended complaint, ¶¶ 75-89; NYSCEF document 256. However, this was improper for several reasons. The pre-HSTPA version of RSL § 26-512 was entitled "stabilization provisions," and governed the manner in which a rent-stabilized apartment's initial "legal regulated rent" should be calculated. Plaintiffs' first cause of action instead seeks "monetary damages from Defendants based on . . . unlawful [rent] overcharges, as well as an award of interest thereon." Id., \ 80. Their second cause of action seeks: "a declaratory judgment adjudging and determining:

"a. the apartments of Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are each subject to the RSL and RSC;

"b. Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are each entitled to a rent-stabilized lease in

a form promulgated by DHCR [i.e., the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal];

"c. the amount of the legal regulated rent for the apartments of Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class;

"d. any leases offered by Defendants to Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are invalid and unlawful unless they are ofered on lease forms and terms prescribed by DHCR; and

"e. Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are not required to pay any rent increases unless and until legally permissible rent-stabilized lease offers are made to, and accepted by, Plaintiffs

...