R&E Client Newsletter - July 2022

QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER

733 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10017 WWW.ROSENBERGESTIS.COM 212-867-6000

“

It is my distinct honor to have been designated Head of Rosenberg & Estis’ esteemed Administrative Law Department during a critical time for the real estate industry. As New York City faces ongoing economic challenges, onerous regulations and unfavorable changes to local laws, R&E remains the top legal resource for property owners, landlords and other industry players. Please enjoy reading last quarter’s achievements and highlights, and, as always, don’t hesitate to contact your legal representative with any questions.”

Zachary J. Rothken Member & Head of R&E’s Administrative Law Department

Contents Feature Story: Taking Stock of the HSTPA Three Years Later

4

In the three years since its passage, NYC has endured a global pandemic, prolonged eviction moratoriums and crippling inflation. Read how Zachary J. Rothken, Member and Head of R&E’s Administrative Law Department, commemorates the HSTPA’s three-year anniversary by re-defining the word “fraud” and its impact on the real estate industry.

Recent Publications

8

Published works by our attorneys as seen in the New York Law Journal, Law360, New York Real Estate Law Reporter, New York Post and Albany Times Union.

Press Releases

38

Recapping R&E’s recent commercial transactional work along with powerful victories in the Appellate Division, First Department and the Commercial Division of the New York County Supreme Court.

Recent Events

48

After two years of remote office life, R&E has sprung into action this summer with teambuilding events on our terrace and around the City. We are thrilled to re-engage the industry at large with the emergence of annual, in-person events, including the recent REBNY Gala, the Brooklyn Law School Alumni Luncheon and more.

4

FEATURE STORY

Fraudulent Scheme: Taking Stock of the HSTPA Three Years Later Zachary J. Rothken Member & Head of R&E’s Administrative Law Department

R&E EXCLUSIVE FEATURE STORY by Zachary J. Rothken July 13, 2022

“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.” - Edmund

which became effective immediately (late on a Friday

Burke

afternoon, of course). The HSPTA as written, inter alia, repealed luxury deregulation, statutory vacancy increases

Much ink has been spilled describing the drastic effects

and longevity increases, radically capped individual

and purportedly unintended consequences of the Housing

apartment increases to 1/168th or 1/180th of up to $15,000 of

Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (“HSTPA”). Signed

the cost of renovations, and made preferential rents constant

into law on June 14, 2019, the HSTPA changed the world of

for the remainder of a tenant’s tenancy.

New York real estate as we know it.

The HSTPA, on its face, also increased the lookback period Three years have since passed, and it has felt more like

for rent overcharge claims to the “last reliable registration”

a decade. In the three years since the HSTPA, we have

going back “six years or more,” as of right, even without any

experienced a global pandemic, an exceedingly long eviction

indicia of a fraud and irrespective of how far back the “last

moratorium and bruising inflation. New political leadership

reliable registration” may have occurred. The legislation did

has emerged at the Federal, State and City levels. The

not clarify what “reliable” meant, so potentially any bump

prospect of “good cause eviction” occupies headlines, and the

in the rent, however ancient, could presumably be deemed

legislature blindly declined to extend the vesting deadline for

“unreliable” and subject to lookback to the registration

421-a(16) tax benefits.

immediately preceding that large increase. This was a major problem for property owners who, prior to the HSTPA’s abrupt

In lieu of rehashing the doom and gloom of the HSTPA, I

enactment, were not legally required to maintain rent records

would like to take this opportunity to take stock of some of

for more than four years. The HSTPA also provided that treble

the developments which have occurred in the last three years

damages may be imposed for the entire 6-year collectability

and where we, as New York City property owners, are headed

period if the owner cannot prove that the overcharge was not

as we tread further into uncharted waters.

willful.

What better way to commemorate the HSTPA’s three-year

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic swept into New York

anniversary than to discuss the definition of fraud?

City. The City essentially shut down, DHCR and the courts hit pause, and tenants stopped paying rent. An onerous eviction

HSTPA

moratorium was put in place. Owners found themselves in an

On June 14, 2019, then-Governor Cuomo signed the HSTPA

unprecedently challenging situation.

FEATURE STORY

would impose treble damages in the event an owner is unable Regina

to establish that a pre-HSTPA overcharge was not willful.

Much of this changed just two weeks into the height of the

All other applications of the HSTPA, such as the elimination

COVID-19 pandemic. On April 2, 2020, the Court of Appeals

of luxury deregulation and statutory vacancy and longevity

offered property owners a relative reprieve.

increases, still apply, but prospectively only.

In Regina Metropolitan Co. v. DHCR, 2020 NY Slip Op

Critically, Regina clarified that the same rules apply to

02127 (N.Y. 2020), in which Rosenberg & Estis represented

“Roberts-type” cases (improper J-51 deregulations) and

one of the owners, the Court of Appeals held that the

“non-Roberts-type” cases. Unaffected by Regina is that there

legislature overreached and that Part F of the HSTPA

is no limitation on lookback concerning regulatory status of

shall not be applied retroactively. The Court held that the

an apartment; consideration of events beyond four years is

HSTPA’s provisions which govern legal rent calculations and

permissible as of right for the purpose of determining whether

overcharges may not be retroactively applied to overcharges

an apartment is regulated. 150 E. Third St. LLC v. Ryan,

alleged to have occurred prior to June 14, 2019. Any pre-

201 AD3d 582 (1st Dep’t 2022); East West Renovating Co. v.

HSTPA overcharges must be governed by the law in effect at

DHCR, 16 AD3d 166 (1st Dep’t 2005).

the time of occurrence.

What is Fraud?

While there is still a great deal to be clarified by the

While Regina afforded owners a much-needed reprieve

courts, Regina can be broadly summarized as follows: For

during one of the most challenging times in New York real

overcharges which are alleged to have occurred prior to

estate history, it left many questions unanswered. Regina held

June 14, 2019, in the absence of a “fraudulent scheme to

that review of rental history beyond four years applies “where

deregulate,” DHCR or a Court may not consider rent history

the tenant produced evidence of a fraudulent scheme.”

beyond four years from the filing of the overcharge claim.

However, despite Regina’s clear reference to a fraudulent

Even if a claim of a pre-HSTPA overcharge is filed on or

scheme to deregulate, the question of how to define “fraud”

after June 14, 2019, the Appellate Division, First Department

quickly arose in subsequent cases.

held that the base date is still four years prior to the date the complaint is filed. See Austin v. 25 Grove St. LLC, 2022 NY

In 435 Cent. Park W. Tenant Assn. v. Park Front Apts., LLC,

Slip Op 00716 (1st Dep’t 2022). Other courts have held that

183 AD3d 509 (1st Dep’t 2020), the Appellate Division,

the lookback under such circumstances is June 14, 2015,

First Department expanded the definition of a “fraudulent

which is four years prior to the HSTPA’s enactment date.

scheme to deregulate” claim to, broadly speaking, any scheme involving fraud such as a “fraudulent rent overcharge

Regina further clarified that, consistent with pre-HSTPA

scheme.” Park Front’s broad interpretation of “fraudulent

law, if a tenant puts forth sufficient indicia of a “fraudulent

scheme” was the first of its kind at the appellate level and

scheme to deregulate,” DHCR or a Court may review the rent

appears, on its face, to be inconsistent with Regina.

history beyond four years from the filing of the overcharge claim, but solely to determine whether a “fraudulent scheme

Similarly, in Montera v. KMR Amsterdam LLC, 193 AD3d 102

to deregulate” occurred. In order to establish a “fraudulent

(1st Dep’t 2021), the Appellate Division, First Department

scheme,” all elements of common law fraud must be met:

cited Park Front and echoed its prior holding that the “fraud”

a willful misrepresentation of material fact, falsity, scienter,

exception likewise applies to any type of fraudulent scheme,

reliance and injury. See Regina, n.7.

such as a fraudulent scheme to overcharge or a fraudulent scheme to keep previously deregulated units out of rent

If a court or DHCR finds a “fraudulent scheme,” the default

stabilization. Justice Gische issued a scathing dissent in

formula, along with the imposition of treble damages, will be

Montera which, inter alia, underscored that the analysis

applied. It remains an open issue as to how far back DHCR

concerns a “fraudulent scheme to deregulate.” Montera

5

6

FEATURE STORY

remains pending before the Court of Appeals as of the date of

the meantime, tenants will likely try to pin any perceived

this writing.

misconduct as a “fraudulent scheme.” We recommend that you reach out to us with any questions in this regard.

In Gridley v. Turnbury, 196 AD3d 9 (2d Dep’t 2021), the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that the analysis must be whether the owner engaged in a “fraudulent scheme to deregulate.” In that case, the Appellate Division held that the Owner did not engage in such a scheme, and on December 14, 2021, the tenants’ motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied.

Likewise, in Ioannou v. 1BK St. Corp., 203 AD3d 627 (1st Dep’t 2022), the Appellate Division, First Department indicated that the analysis in determining whether “fraud can be shown” is whether the owner “engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate.” See also, Hess v. EDR Assets LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06920 (1st Dep’t 2021); Vendaval Realty, LLC v. Felder, 67 Misc. 3d 145(A) (AT1 2020).

In Casey v. Whitehouse Estates, Inc., 197 AD3d 401 (1st Dep’t 2021), the Appellate Division, First Department seemingly contradicted its prior precedent in one fell swoop.

In Casey, the court faulted the owner for performing its own calculations for refunds on alleged rent overcharges and held that the owner should have essentially sat and waited until the court performed its own calculations. Casey held that the owner’s good faith corrective measures constituted an “attempt to avoid the court’s adjudication of the issues and to impose their own rent calculations rather than face a determination of the legal regulated rent within the lookback period.” Casey also held that although the owner did not commit fraud prior to the four-year base date, the owner’s post-base date conduct constituted a fraudulent scheme.

The Appellate Division demonstrably erred in Casey because the whole institution of the “fraud” exception was because, as established in Grimm, pre-base date fraud renders the base date rent unreliable. Base date rents are presumed to be reliable, and subsequent events cannot, by definition, have an effect on a prior date’s rent’s reliability. Casey remains pending before the Court of Appeals as of the date of this writing.

Accordingly, the issue is one that is yet to be resolved. In

FEATURE STORY

7

8

PUBLICATIONS

Force Majeure Clauses in Commercial Leases: Recent Appellate Developments In recent weeks, the Appellate Division, First Department has twice considered the issue of whether a force majeure clause can excuse the obligation to pay rent under a commercial lease. In their Landlord-Tenant column, Gary Rosenberg and Alexander Lycoyannis discuss these cases.

Although—hopefully—New York is long past the COVID-related lockdowns that we saw two years ago, cases involving disputes over unpaid rent accruing during the spring and summer of 2020 are still winding their way through the court system. In that regard, commercial landlord-tenant litigators are by now well aware that the defenses of impossibility of performance and frustration of purpose are largely unavailable to commercial tenants whose businesses were negatively affected by COVID-19 (see e.g. “The ‘COVID Defenses’: An Appellate Update,” April 6, 2022; “Is It the Beginning of the End of the ‘COVID Defenses?,’” June 1, 2021).

However, as stated in this column in April, “a COVID-related defense to nonpayment of rent stands on firmer legal footing if the defense is based on the lease’s language” (“The ‘COVID Defenses’: An Appellate Update,” April 6, 2022). One such possible defense is the “force majeure” clause, a clause commonly found in commercial leases and other commercial contracts.

“A force majeure event is an event beyond the control of the parties that prevents performance under a contract and may excuse nonperformance” (Beardslee v. Inflection Energy, LLC, 25 NY3d 150, 154 [2015]). However, a force majeure clause is not an automatic “get out of jail free” card for the obligated party; the clause’s wording is crucial. “[C]ontractual force majeure clauses…under the common law provide a… narrow defense. Ordinarily, only if the force majeure clause specifically includes the event that actually prevents a party’s performance will that party be excused” (Kel Kim Corp. v.

Cent. Markets, Inc., 70 NY2d 900, 902-03 [1987]; see Reade v. Stoneybrook Realty, LLC, 63 AD3d 433, 434 [1st Dept.

2009]).

Moreover, where a force majeure provision contains a catchall provision such as “or other similar causes beyond the control of such party,” “the general words are not to be given expansive meaning; they are confined to things of the same kind or nature as the particular matters mentioned” (Kel Kim Corp., 70 NY2d at 903).

As seen in the New York Law Journal

By Gary M. Rosenberg and Alexander Lycoyannis May 31, 2022

Thus, for example, where a lease for an off-track betting parlor contained a force majeure clause excusing performance due to, inter alia, “governmental action or inaction,” and the town’s zoning ordinance was amended to prevent the subject premises from being utilized in the manner contemplated by the lease, the Appellate Division held that the tenant’s obligation to pay rent did not arise and the lease was invalid

PUBLICATIONS

(see Burnside 711, LLC v. Nassau Regional Off-Track Betting

COVID-19 pandemic inhibited its ability to timely vacate the

Corp., 67 AD3d 718, 720 [2d Dept. 2009]; see also Reade, 63

premises after the lease’s expiration (id.).

AD3d at 434 [judicially-imposed temporary restraining order was a “governmental prohibition” under force majeure clause,

The Appellate Division held that in light of the lease’s force

and landlord’s obligations were therefore suspended during

majeure clause excusing the performance of obligations due

period order was in effect]).

to, inter alia, “other causes beyond the reasonable control of the performing party,” the lower court properly denied the

On the other hand, where the specific matters in the force

owner’s summary judgment motion:

majeure clause related to the tenant’s ability to conduct dayto-day operations at the premises, the tenant’s inability to

Nevertheless, plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was

procure and maintain insurance was insufficiently similar and

properly denied on the merits. Assuming, arguendo, that

therefore did not fall under the catchall “or other similar caus-

lease section 25, which requires the defendant to remove its

es beyond the control of such party;” as a result, the tenant’s

property within five days of lease termination, applies to the

obligation to maintain insurance under the lease was not

expiration (as opposed to the termination) of the lease, de-

excused and the owner validly terminated the lease based on

fendant has a colorable defense that section 26.03 (the force

the tenant’s violation of such obligation (see Kel Kim Corp.,

majeure provision) extended its time to remove its property.

70 NY2d at 902-903).

That section includes ‘other causes beyond the reasonable control of the performing party.’

In recent weeks, the Appellate Division, First Department has twice considered the issue of whether a force majeure clause

(id.).

can excuse the obligation to pay rent under a commercial lease.

In support of its holding, the Appellate Division relied on the March 2022 ruling in JN Contemporary Art LLC v. Phillips

In Fives 160th, LLC v. Zhao (164 NYS3d 427, 2022 NY Slip

Auctioneers LLC (29 F4th 118 [2d Cir 2022]), where the

Op 02339 [App Div 1st Dept. 2022]), decided in April, the Ap-

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that “the

pellate Division held that a commercial landlord stated a valid

COVID–19 pandemic and the orders issued by New York’s

claim for unpaid rent and additional rent due, and, further, reit-

governor that restricted how nonessential businesses could

erated its recent holding that “the COVID–19 pandemic…can-

conduct their affairs during the pandemic” fell within a simi-

not serve to excuse a party’s lease obligations on the grounds

larly-worded contractual force majeure clause excusing an

of frustration of purpose or impossibility” (id.). Notably, howev-

auction house’s obligation to sell a certain painting due to

er, the court further stated: “Nor did the lease contain a force

“circumstances beyond our or your reasonable control” (id. at

majeure clause, and this court may not add or imply such

123-124).

a clause” (id.). Such statement implied that had the parties’ commercial lease contained a force majeure clause, the out-

Although not spelled out in the 850 Third Ave. decision, a

come could have been different and the tenant’s obligations

review of the underlying Supreme Court file reveals the full

could have been excused.

text of the force majeure provision:

A few weeks later, the Appellate Division grappled with a

Whenever a period of time is prescribed for the taking of an

dispute relating to a commercial lease that did contain such a

action by Landlord or Tenant (other than the payment of the

clause—and it held that the outcome could indeed be differ-

Security Deposit or Rent), the period of time for the perfor-

ent than in Zhou. In 850 Third Ave. Owner, LLC v. Discovery

mance of such action shall be extended by the number of

Communications, LLC (2022 NY Slip Op 03171 [App Div 1st

days that the performance is actually delayed due to strikes,

Dept. May 12, 2022]), the owner moved for summary judg-

acts of God, shortages of labor or materials, war, terrorist

ment on its claims for unpaid rent and holdover rent under an

acts, civil disturbances and other causes beyond the reason-

expired lease and argued, inter alia, that the tenant violated a

able control of the performing party (“Force Majeure”).

lease provision requiring the removal of its personal property from the subject premises within five days after the lease’s

Accordingly, given the Court of Appeals’ instruction in Kel Kim

expiration (id.). Among the tenant’s defenses was that the

that the reach of catchall provisions in force majeure clauses

9

10

PUBLICATIONS

is limited to items of the same kind as the specific matters mentioned, the Appellate Division in effect held that the tenant raised an issue of fact as to whether the COVID-19 pandemic is of the same nature as “strikes, acts of God, shortages of labor or materials, war, terrorist acts, [or] civil disturbances.”

As indicated above, practitioners representing commercial clients involved in COVID-19-related rent disputes should consult the lease to determine whether it contains a force majeure clause and, if it does, the scope of the clause and whether the language applies to the facts at hand. The answer to the question may be dispositive and could determine the fate of the commercial tenancy at issue.

PUBLICATIONS

Demolition Applications

RSL §26-511(c)(9)(a) allows a landlord to refuse to renew a

In First NY, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Justice Carol Edmead affirmed a DHCR order that denied the landlord’s demolition application on the ground that the landlord had failed to provide documentation as to its plans for the site following the demolition. This article will examine this case as well as an earlier decision by Justice Debra James in 118 Duane LLC v. New York State Div. of Homes & Community Renewal dealing with the subject of demolition applications.

demolish the building and has obtained a permit therefor from

rent stabilized lease “where he or she intends in good faith to the department of buildings.” In First NY, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2021 WL 5206279 (Sup Ct, NY County), Justice Carol Edmead affirmed a DHCR order that denied the landlord’s demolition application on the ground that the landlord had failed to provide documentation as to its plans for the site following the demolition.

This article will examine First NY, LLC, as well as an earlier decision by Justice Debra A. James in 118 Duane LLC v. New York State Div. of Homes & Community Renewal, 2020 WL 1811319 (Sup Ct, NY County).

RSC §2524.4(a)(2) implements the statute, allowing a landlord to recover an apartment where the “owner seeks to demolish the building.” The regulation goes on to provide that DHCR shall not approve any demolition application “[u]ntil the owner has submitted proof of its financial ability to complete such undertaking to the DHCR, and plans for the undertaking have been approved by the appropriate city agency” (emphasis supplied). As will be seen, the definition of the word “undertaking” will figure largely in the decisions discussed herein.

The statute and regulations are silent as to what, if anything, the landlord must do with the site if the demolition application is approved. For example, can the landlord allow the land to lay fallow until market conditions are ripe for construction?

Can the landlord use the space for an interim non-housing use, such as a parking lot? How do such uses accord with the RSL’s overarching goal of alleviating a chronic housing shortage?

Notably, a prior version of RSC section 2524.5(a)(2) provided that a demolition application would be granted where the landlord establishes that “he or she seeks in good faith to recover possession of the housing accommodations for the purpose of demolishing them and constructing a new building” (emphasis supplied).

As seen in the New York Law Journal

By Jeffrey Turkel May 4, 2022

Similarly, section 26-408(b)(1) of the City Rent Law (rent control) currently provides that a landlord may apply to DHCR for a certificate of eviction where the landlord “seeks in good faith to recover possession of housing accommodations for the immediate purpose of demolishing them, and the city rent agency determines that such demolition is to be effected for the purpose of constructing a new building.”

11

12

PUBLICATIONS

Section 2204.8(a)(1) of the Rent and Eviction Regulations

ceed in good faith in its application for demolition because he

further provides that the new building must contain “at least

failed to include evidence of its future plans for the demolition

20 percent more housing accommodations, consisting of

site… While the legislature did not explicitly provide such

self-contained family units…than there are apartments con-

requirement under the RSL, petitioner’s refusal to divulge its

tained in the structure being demolished.”

plans post-demolition, and the DHCR’s inability to fairly and reasonably determine a cost estimate of the project and/or if

‘118 Duane LLC’

the petitioner had the financial ability to complete its under-

In 2015 the landlord in 118 Duane LLC filed five demolition

taking, provide(s) a rational basis for the denial of petitioner’s

applications with DHCR. The landlord proposed to leave only

application. In the instant case, the DHCR cited to its own Op-

a “sliver” of 120 Duane Street, which would provide emergen-

erational Bulletin 2009-1 to establish that ‘such undertaking’ is

cy egress for a next-door building. The landlord took the posi-

not limited to the demolition itself.

tion that it merely had to establish that DOB had approved the demolition plan, and that the landlord had sufficient financial means to demolish.

‘First NY, LLC’ The landlord in First NY, LLC, filed a demolition application with DHCR in 2019. The application alleged that DOB had

DHCR’s Rent Administrator denied the applications, and DH-

approved the demolition of the building, and that the landlord

CR’s Commissioner thereafter affirmed. As is relevant herein,

had the funds to demolish. DHCR’s Rent Administrator denied

DHCR held that the landlord’s obligation to prove its financial

the application on the following grounds:

ability to complete such “undertaking” includes the landlord’s post-demolition plans for the site, which the landlord had not

The Rent Administrator determined that the owner failed to

provided:

prove its good faith in seeking the eviction of the tenant as required by the DHCR Operational Bulletin 2009-1 and under

The Commissioner finds that ‘such undertaking’ as noted

RSC § 2524.5 in that the owner has not presented any ratio-

in the Operational Bulletin includes any new construction

nal objective for demolishing the building. The RA found that

or other project that is planned for the site. The term ‘such

the owner conceded in a statement dated November 5, 2019

undertaking’ is not limited to the demolition itself.

that no immediate hazards or structural defects exist which constitute danger or conditions detrimental to life or health of

*

*

*

tenants. Further, the petitioner does not assert any planned projects for the site with approved architectural plans, scope

In the present case, the Rent Administrator noted that peti-

of work, and a cost estimate based on a technical analysis of

tioner did not present any rational or objective plan other than

the plans and specifications, such that DHCR may evaluate

the demolition of all regulated apartments in the building. The

the feasibility and the owner’s financial ability to complete

Commissioner finds that petitioner’s refusal to state any future

such project. The RA determined the owner has not present-

plans for the site was a further basis to deny the application.

ed any credible reason for demolishing the occupied regulat-

The agency does have a legitimate interest in what an owner

ed housing.

will do with the site after the demolition in order to determine whether or not to grant the owner’s application. The agency

DHCR’s Commissioner affirmed the Rent Administrator’s

seeks to prevent a situation whereby the agency would grant

order on 118 Duane LLC:

such application only to have an owner not go forward with the demolition. It is also puzzling why petitioner would not

The Commissioner finds the petitioner’s demolition plan is

simply identify its future plans for the site given that it would

insufficient in terms of the scope of the ‘undertaking’ and

be extremely unlikely that the property would be left vacant.

financial ability to complete same. The efforts to distinguish the clear holding of 118 Duane LLC, and prior similar determi-

In the subsequent Article 78 proceeding, Justice James

nations is not persuasive. Any reasonable interpretation of the

affirmed DHCR’s denial of the landlord’s demolition applica-

term ‘undertaking’ as it pertains to a demolition which would

tions, as follows:

evict a rent-regulated tenant includes post-demolition plans.

This is true even though the term ‘… and constructing a new

The Commissioner determined that petitioner failed to pro-

building’ was removed from the RSC. As noted by the courts,

PUBLICATIONS

‘financial ability to complete such undertaking’ inherently implies more than just demolition. (boldface in original) Supreme Court affirmed DHCR’s order in the subsequent Article 78 proceeding, albeit on somewhat narrower grounds: Judge James upheld the DHCR denial of the landlord’s application for certificates of eviction in 118 Duane LLC because there was a rational basis to support the Deputy Commissioner’s finding that the landlord had failed to satisfy the second requirement set forth in Operational Bulletin 2009-1; i.e., evidence of funds placed into a segregated bank account that were to be used for the sole purpose of completing demolition work. By failing to present such documents, the landlord failed to demonstrate its financial ability to complete the demolition, and thereby fell afoul of RSC § 2524.5(a)(2) (i), which justified the PAR’s denial and the landlord’s request for certificates of conviction. In the current case too, the PAR Order found that First NY’s ‘failure to provide approved post-demolition planning for the site and segregation of the funding for same warranted denial of its application.’ (emphasis in original) Lessons Learned 118 Duane LLC was not appealed to the First Department, and to date, there has been no appeal from Justice Edmead’s order in First NY, LLC. These two decisions, coupled with DHCR’s policy that the landlord’s “undertaking” also relates to post-demolition plans, means that landlords are advised to comply with DHCR’s requirements until the First Department rules otherwise.

Accordingly: (1) any demolition application must set forth the landlord’s post-demolition plans for the site; (2) the landlord must establish that DOB has approved both the demolition plans and the post-demolition plans; and (3) the landlord must establish that it has the financial ability to fund both the demolition and the post-demolition new construction. Although leaving the land vacant will apparently result in the denial of a demolition application, it remains to be seen whether a lowcost interim plan—such as parking lot or an outdoor antiques market, might suffice.

13

14

PUBLICATIONS

Making Sense of the 421-A Rent Concession Appeals

Landlords initially renting up new RPTL 421-a buildings routinely give incoming rent-stabilized tenants rent concessions to account for the fact that construction may be ongoing, and that there may still be punch list items in the apartments. This seemingly innocuous practice, however, has led to class-action litigation wherein tenants allege that rent concessions are part of a fraudulent scheme that results in massive building-wide overcharges under the Rent Stabilization Law. We begin with Rent Stabilization Code §2521.1(g), which sets the initial stabilized rents for apartments in 421-a buildings: “The initial legal regulated rent for a housing accommodation constructed pursuant to section 421-a of the Real Property Tax Law shall be the initial adjusted monthly rent charged and paid….”

A rent concession, however, can blur the issue of what rent was actually charged and paid by the first tenant. For example, if a tenant signs a 12-month lease at $3,000 per month with a one month rent abatement, one might argue that the monthly rent charged and paid is what it appears to be: $3,000. But given that the tenant pays a total of $33,000 over 12 months (11 payments of $3,000, with the 12th month free), one might also argue that the “real” monthly rent is $2,750 ($33,000 / 12 = $2,750).

This issue becomes important because under the rent stabilization system, the first stabilized rent becomes the basis for all future rent increases. Thus, in the example set forth above, the question arises as to whether the renewal will be at a guideline increase above $3,000, or above $2,750. That $250 differential, when multiplied by dozens or even hundreds of apartments in a new 421-a building, over a period of months or years, is a sum worth fighting over.

On Dec. 28, 2021, the Appellate Division, First Department issued decisions in two so-called rent concession cases: Flynn v Red Apple 670 Pac. St., LLC, 200 AD3d 607 (1st Dept 2021), and Chernett v Spruce 1209, LLC, 200 AD3d 596 (1st Dept 2021). In Flynn, the First Department affirmed Supreme

As seen in New York Real Estate Law Reporter

By Jeffrey Turkel May 1, 2022

Court’s dismissal of the tenants’ complaint. In Chernett, the First Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of landlord’s motion to dismiss.

Flynn The facts in Flynn are straightforward. The building in Flynn received a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) on

PUBLICATIONS

Aug. 8, 2016. Flynn, the first tenant of the apartment, signed

had no impact on the remainder of plaintiff’s rent payments.

his lease on Aug. 18, 2016, six months before a permanent

There is also no dispute that, at the time plaintiff received a

CO (CO) was issued on Feb. 10, 2017. The lease recited a

one-month rent concession, the building had not yet received

monthly rent of $3,350, and contained a rent concession rider

a permanent certificate of occupancy. Under these circum-

providing for a one-month rent concession in the last month of

stances, plaintiff failed to assert allegations sufficient to with-

the 13-month lease term. The rider stated in relevant part:

stand a motion to dismiss his claim that defendants attempted to defraud him by manipulating the legal regulated rent.”

“The foregoing One-Time Concession is granted solely in consideration for Tenant entering into the Lease for the

Chernett

apartment located in a new building which was completing

In Chernett, the timing of the issuance of the CO worked

construction and commencing operations at the time of the

against the landlord. There, the initial occupant of apartment

execution of the Lease. The One-Time Concession is granted

311 signed a 13-month lease commencing in June 2014,

to compensate Tenant for any and all inconvenience asso-

which contained a rent concession rider granting a one-month

ciated with the same including, but not limited to, noise, dirt,

rent concession. The initial tenant of apartment 410 signed

debris, use of the Building and or common areas by Owner’s

a lease commencing January 2015, which contained a rider

construction contractors and/or employees, and temporary

granting a three-month rent concession. Both initial leases

cessation of services, including utilities and elevator service.”

were signed after the building’s CO was issued on Oct. 23, 2013.

The tenants in Flynn asserted that: 1) Flynn’s initial stabilized rent was in fact the “net effective rent” of $3,092.31 ($3,350

The First Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of

x 12 ÷ 13 = $3,092.31); and 2) the landlord’s assertion that

landlord’s motion to dismiss, stating:

the initial stabilized rent was $3,350 was part of a scheme to defraud Flynn and similarly situated tenants.

“The motion court correctly denied defendant’s motion, finding that the complaint stated a cause of action for overcharges

The landlord moved to dismiss. The landlord first cited DH-

based on an alleged fraudulent scheme to evade the require-

CR’s Fact Sheet 40, which expressly distinguished between:

ments of the 421-a program so as to charge higher rents by

1) a one-time rent concession; and 2) a “preferential” rent,

providing ‘construction concessions’ well after construction

where the rent concession is pro-rated throughout the lease

was complete.

and is not tied to a specific month. In the former case, the first stabilized rent is the contract rent. In the latter case, the lower

***

“preferential” or net effective rent is deemed the first stabilized rent.

We agree with the motion court that the allegations in the complaint warrant discovery to determine whether the con-

The landlord also relied on Matter of Century Operating

cessions were functionally equivalent to a preferential rent;

Corp. v Popolizio, 60 NY2d 483 (1983). The Court of Appeals

‘[s]imply calling it a concession does not transform it into a

interpreted the rent concession rider therein as evidencing

permissible activity under the applicable statutory scheme.”

a true, one-time rent concession that did not survive the lease of which it was a part (“[t]he concession rider under

Although defendant contends that DHCR’s fact sheet 40

consideration, fixed as it was to the granting of possession

distinguishes between a permissible one-time concession for

and assumption of occupancy in the uncertainty of building

a specific month and a preferential rent and that it properly

completion, cannot be construed to carry forward to renewal

deferred to DHCR, discovery is needed to determine whether

leases”).

that is so” (internal citation omitted; italics supplied).

The First Department in Flynn affirmed Supreme Court’s

Aftermath

dismissal of the complaint, succinctly stating:

Flynn and Chernett make clear that in the First Department, rent concession cases will be judged on their specific facts.

“Pursuant to the concession rider, the parties plainly agreed

The primary factors will be: 1) the execution date of the initial

that the one-month rent concession was a one-time event that

stabilized lease relative to the date a CO was issued; and 2)

15

16

PUBLICATIONS

the intent of the parties as evidenced by the language of the rent concession rider.

A problem arises, however, for rent concession cases in the Second Department, where a good many 421-a buildings were constructed. The first perfected rent concession case in the Second Department, Marantz v MD CBD 180 Franklin St., Sup Ct, Kings County Index No. 521055/20, will not be decided by the Second Department until 2023 or 2024, given the Court’s extensive backlog. In the meantime, however, lower courts in the Second Department will be bound by Flynn and Chernett. See, Maple Med., LLP v Scott, 191 AD3d 81, 90 (2d Dept 2020) (“While the Supreme Court is bound to apply the law as promulgated by the Appellate Division of its own Department, where the issue has not been addressed within that Department, the Supreme Court is obligated to follow the precedent set by the Appellate Division of another Department until its home Department or the Court of Appeals pronounces a contrary rule”).

PUBLICATIONS

17

18

PUBLICATIONS

The ‘COVID Defenses’: An Appellate Update In their June, 2021 Landlord-Tenant column, Warren Estis and Alexander Lycoyannis predicted that as “New York proceeds slowly but surely toward a semblance of pre-pandemic normalcy…the era of COVID-related defenses to commercial rent nonpayment may soon become a thing of the past.” In this column, they discuss two recent rulings from the Appellate Division, First Department which bear directly on the issue.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have analyzed some of the many cases involving the “COVID defenses,” i.e. defenses to commercial rent nonpayment predicated in some manner on the pandemic (see our columns of Dec. 2, 2020, Feb. 2, 2021 and June 1, 2021). In our June 1, 2021 column, we stated: “As New York proceeds slowly but surely toward a semblance of pre-pandemic normalcy…the era of COVID-related defenses to commercial rent nonpayment may soon become a thing of the past.”

Two recent rulings from the Appellate Division, First Department bear directly on this issue. In Valentino U.S.A., Inc., v. 693 Fifth Owner LLC (160 NYS3d 858, 2022 NY Slip Op 01431 [1st Dept. 2022]), the Appellate Division affirmed that doctrines such as frustration of purpose and impossibility of performance are, indeed, generally unavailable to relieve commercial tenants from the consequences of COVID-related rent nonpayment. However, in Schulte Roth & Zabel v.

Metropolitan 919 3rd Avenue LLC, et. al. (202 AD3d 641 [1st Dept. 2022]), the court also affirmed that, above all, commercial lease terms negotiated by sophisticated parties will govern COVID-related rent disputes.

‘Valentino’ In Valentino U.S.A., Inc., v. 693 Fifth Owner LLC, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the plaintiff-tenant’s complaint asserting the COVID defenses failed to state a cause of action.

Relying on its ruling in Crown IT Servs., Inc. v. Koval-Olsen (11 AD3d 263, 265 [1st Dept 2004]), the Appellate Division held first that “the narrow doctrine of frustration of purpose is inapplicable here, where the purpose of the contract has not been completely thwarted” (160 NYS3d at 859 [internal quotation marks omitted]). The court explained: Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, frustration of purpose is not implicated by temporary governmental restrictions on in-person operations, as the parties’ respective duties were to pay rent in exchange for occupying the leased premises, and plaintiff acknowledged that it was open for curbside retail

As seen in the New York Law Journal

By Alexander Lycoyannis (with contributions from Alex M. Estis) April 5, 2022

services as of June 4, 2020 and services by appointment as of June 22, 2020. (id.)

The Appellate Division similarly rejected the plaintiff’s impossibility of performance claim, noting that impossibility “excus-

PUBLICATIONS

es a party’s performance only when the destruction of the

defendant-owner’s motion to dismiss the complaint because

subject matter of the contract or the means of performance

Section 5.4 of the lease is ambiguous, i.e. “on its face” it is

makes performance objectively impossible” (160 NYS3d at

“reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation” (202

859 [citing Kel Kim Corp. v. Central Mkts., 70 NY2d 900, 902

AD3d at 641 [citations omitted]). The court explained:

[1987]). The court held that the COVID-19 pandemic failed to satisfy this very high standard:

On the one hand, section 5.4 can be reasonably interpreted

Here, the pandemic, while continuing to be “disruptive for

to mean that plaintiff will be entitled to a rent abatement only

many businesses,” did not render plaintiff’s performance im-

if plaintiff’s inability to use the premises is a result of defen-

possible, even if its ability to provide a luxury experience was

dant’s breach of its obligations under the lease. Pursuant

rendered more difficult, because the leased premises were

to this interpretation, the condition within the parentheses

not destroyed (see 558 Seventh Ave. Corp. v. Times Sq. Pho-

is directly connected to the condition that comes before the

to Inc., 194 AD3d 561, 562 [1st Dept 2021], appeal dismissed

parenthesis and means that the plaintiff would be entitled to

37 NY3d 1040 [2021]).

a rent abatement if the plaintiff is unable to use the leased premises because the landlord breached an obligation under

(id.)

the lease, and the breach is caused, in whole or in part, by an Unavoidable Delay, as defined in the lease, if the Unavoid-

Finally, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff’s construc-

able Delay continues for more than 15 business days.

tive eviction claim, noting that the “complaint alleges that the pandemic is to blame for plaintiff’s temporary inability to op-

On the other hand, section 5.4 can also be reasonably inter-

erate,” and not “any act by defendant that interfered with [the

preted to mean that plaintiff will be entitled to a rent abate-

plaintiff’s] use or enjoyment” of the leased premises (id.).

ment if one of two conditions occur. Specifically, the plaintiff would be entitled to a rent abatement if it is unable to use

‘Schulte Roth & Zabel’

the leased premises, which is caused by either (i) landlord’s

While Valentino has cemented the notion that commercial

breach of an obligation under the lease, or (ii) Unavoidable

tenants relying solely on the COVID defenses face an uphill

Delays that continue for more than 15 business days. Pursu-

battle in defeating an owner’s rent claims, the Appellate Divi-

ant to this interpretation, the use of the disjunctive ‘or’ at the

sion’s ruling in Schulte Roth & Zabel v. Metropolitan 919 3rd

beginning of the parenthetical clause distinguishes the sec-

Avenue LLC, et. al. establishes the primacy of a commercial

ond condition within the parenthetical as a separate and alter-

lease’s language in deciding a COVID-related rent dispute.

native condition to the first condition, which comes before the parenthesis. Moreover, as a separate condition, it does not

In Schulte Roth & Zabel, the plaintiff-tenant sought a rent

require that the landlord breach an obligation under the lease

abatement for a period during which most of its employees

in order for the plaintiff to be entitled to a rent abatement.

were working remotely. The plaintiff relied on Section 5.4 of the lease, which provides, in relevant part, that the plaintiff is

(id. at 642)

entitled to a rent abatement if: Accordingly, the Appellate Division directed the matter to Tenant is unable to use the Premises,…due to Landlord’s

proceed to discovery because “extrinsic evidence will be

breach of an obligation under this Lease to provide services,

necessary to resolve the ambiguity” (id.).

perform repairs, or comply with Legal Requirements…other than as a result of Unavoidable Delays or Tenant Delays (or, if

Conclusion

Tenant’s inability to use the Premises…results, in whole or in

As the foregoing decisions illustrate, it is now clear that over

part, from Unavoidable Delays and such condition continues

two years after the pandemic’s onset, (1) standing alone, the

for a period in excess of fifteen (15) consecutive Business

legal doctrines of frustration of purpose and impossibility of

Days).

performance will usually not excuse a commercial tenant’s nonpayment of rent, even if COVID rendered the tenant’s per-

(202 AD3d at 642.)

formance difficult, and (2) a COVID-related defense to nonpayment of rent stands on firmer legal footing if the defense is

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the

based on the lease’s language.

19

20

PUBLICATIONS

Need To Protect Your Neighbor’s Property?

It’s Going To Cost You.

Anyone who has walked a few blocks down the streets of

On February 15th, the First Department issued a decision in ‘In the Matter of Panasia Estate v. 29 West 19 Condominium’, which confirmed that, although not expressly stated, RPAPL §881 authorizes courts to award license fees, attorney fees, or engineering or other design professional fees.

on their own building.

New York City has likely seen unsightly sidewalk sheds and scaffolding adorning buildings and covering sidewalks. While such temporary protective equipment may be irksome to some, it serves an important purpose of protecting pedestrians and adjacent properties during construction projects of neighboring properties. Moreover, property owners and developers are required to install the protective equipment on their neighbors’ buildings pursuant to the New York City Building Code (the Code), when they are performing construction work

When an owner seeks to make improvements or repairs to its property, and such improvements or repairs require access to the adjacent property, the owner must request access from the neighbor and attempt to negotiate a license agreement for access to install temporary protection on the adjacent premises.

Far too frequently, the owner and the neighbor cannot reach an agreement and fail to execute the license agreement.

The most common sticking points for these negotiations are coverage of the neighbor’s attorney fees incurred in connection with negotiating the license agreement, the neighbor’s engineering fees incurred in connection with the review of the owner’s construction and site safety plans, and the license fee requested by the owner to compensate it for the loss of use and enjoyment of its property.

Fortunately for owners and developers, when the parties reach an impasse and an adjacent owner refuses access for the installation of the temporary protection, the developer can seek court-ordered access by commencing a special proceeding pursuant to §881 of New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL).

Over the past decade, the volume of RPAPL §881 proceedings has skyrocketed as property development has increased.

While the courts will generally grant an owner’s petition for access, they have been inconsistent when deciding whether the adjacent owner is entitled to the reimbursement of its

As seen in the New York Law Journal

By Jason R. Davidson and Brendan J. Derr March 5, 2021

legal and engineering fees, and whether the adjacent owner should be paid a license fee (see, e.g., 10 E. End Ave. Owners v. Two E. End Ave. Apartment, 35 Misc.3d 1215(A) (Sup. Ct. New York County 2012) (holding that RPAPL §881 does not warrant the imposition of a license fee); 109 Montgomery Owner v. 921 Washington Ave., 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 31530(U), 5 (Sup. Ct. Kings County 2018) (granting license for access

PUBLICATIONS

and declining to impose a license fee and award attorney

fees not explicitly authorized, because the statute specifically

fees); but see DDG Warren v. Assouline Ritz 1, 138 A.D.3d

provides for liability only for “actual damages.” The petitioner

539 (1st Dep’t 2016) (granting license for access, but award-

further argued that the absence from the statute’s legisla-

ing adjacent owner a license fee and attorney fees; Matter of

tive history of any mention of a monetary remedy other than

North 7-8 Invs. v. Newgarden, 43 Misc.3d 623 (Sup. Ct. Kings

actual damages is consistent with the American rule—which

County 2014) (same)).

provides that attorney fees are incidents of litigation, and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an

On February 15th, the First Department issued a decision in

award is authorized by agreement between the parties, stat-

In the Matter of Panasia Estate v. 29 West 19 Condominium,

ute, or court rule. Finally, petitioner argued that public policy

2022 NY Slip Op 00975 (1st Dep’t Feb. 15, 2022), which

requires that RPAPL §881 be interpreted such that property

confirmed that, although not expressly stated, RPAPL §881

owners will be encouraged to improve their properties without

authorizes courts to award license fees, attorney fees, or

fear of being extorted by their neighbors.

engineering or other design professional fees. This means that courts will order developers to pay an adjacent owner’s

The court, however, rejected these arguments, reasoning that

license fees, professionals’ fees incurred in negotiating a li-

because “[t]he respondent to an 881 petition has not sought

cense agreement, and the adjacent owner’s fees in defending

out the intrusion and does not derive any benefit from it …

against an RPAPL §881 proceeding— which has not always

[e]quity requires that the owner compelled to grant access

been the case.

should not have to bear any costs resulting from the access” (id. quoting DDG Warren, 138 A.D.3d at 540). The court

In the case at hand, the petitioner sought to improve its prop-

explained that license fees are warranted where the tempo-

erty by adding two stories for commercial office space, which

rary protection will interfere with the adjacent owner’s use and

will take up to three years to construct. In connection with its

enjoyment of its property. Furthermore, an adjacent owner

planned improvements, the petitioner sought access to re-

should not be put in a position of either having to incur the

spondents’ adjoining properties to perform a pre-construction

costs of a design professional to ensure petitioner’s work will

survey and install, among other things, overhead protection,

not endanger his property or having to grant access without

roof protection and flashing on the respondents’ properties

being able to conduct a meaningful review of the petitioner’s

to protect the properties. When the negotiations of license

plans. Moreover, the court explained the American rule is

agreements with the adjacent owners halted over payment

inapplicable in the context of an RPAPL §881 proceeding be-

of license fees and professionals’ fees, the petitioner com-

cause attorney fees are a condition of a license as opposed

menced the proceeding. The trial court granted petitioner’s

to an incident of litigation.

request for access, but ordered petitioner to pay respondents’ attorney fees, engineering fees, and a monthly license fee

Interestingly, the court did not address the fact that the Code

which escalated after 12 months.

puts the onus of protecting the adjacent property on the adjacent owner if it refuses access to the developer.

Petitioner appealed from the order to the extent it ordered the petitioner to pay monthly license fees and the respondent’s

Indeed, §3309.5 of the Code provides, “if the person who

engineering and attorney fees in connection with the license

causes the construction, demolition, or excavation work is

and to post a bond in the amount of $1 million. Respondents

not afforded a license, such duty to preserve and protect the

appealed from the order to the extent the motion court de-

adjacent property, shall devolve to the owner of the adjoining

clined to order a term for the license to, inter alia, order peti-

property” (emphasis added).

tioner to pay the professional fees they incurred in connection with the license.

Nor did the court address its decision in Meopta Properties II v. Pacheco, 185 A.D.3d 511, 512 (1st Dep’t 2020), where

Among other things, the petitioner argued that RPAPL §881

it declined to award license fees and professionals’ fees in

does not authorize awards of license fees, attorney fees,

connection with remedial and protective construction work

or engineering fees. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that

(see also Berard v. Hamersley, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 30248(U),

“upon such terms as justice requires” cannot be interpreted

9 (Sup. Ct. New York County 2021) (granting license to

to authorize license fees, counsel fees, or other professional

access adjacent property and refusing to award attorney fees

21

22

PUBLICATIONS

or license fees where access was necessary to repair and renovate the exterior walls, windows and roof of petitioner’s building)).

Although the Second Department has not weighed in so definitively, this decision will undoubtedly have a significant impact on developers who seek to improve their property.

Developers will need to account for paying their neighbors’ professionals’ fees and for monthly license fees when developing their projects’ budgets. It will also, almost certainly, lead to an increased amount of RPAPL §881 proceedings against adjacent owners, who will be emboldened by this decision and will delay the developers’ projects until they receive the compensation to which they believe they are entitled. As a result, courts will spend their time determining what license fee amounts are “reasonable.”

Developers will be smart to keep negotiations with adjacent owners on a short leash, offer reasonable compensation and commence RPAPL §881 proceedings as soon as it is clear that the neighbor’s demands are unreasonable, so as to avoid any further project delays caused by the neighbor’s obstruction.

PUBLICATIONS

New York’s Good Cause Eviction Bill Is Problematic

New York lawmakers are currently considering S. 3082, also known as the good cause eviction, or GCE, bill. The bill would impose a strict new rent control regime on virtually all of New York State’s free-market residential apartment stock.

The state Senate has recently resumed consideration of the bill. And there is significant concern throughout the business community and the New York real estate industry that the bill will become law with its harmful elements intact.

Ostensibly intended, as the name suggests, to require so-called good cause before evicting residential tenants, the GCE bill would instead freeze most current residential occupancies even where good cause supposedly exists.

As written, the GCE bill would give property owners little to no recourse to remove tenants in a variety of absurd scenarios.

Better dubbed the “no eviction ever” bill, this sweeping proposal is rife with murky language and strict new controls that limit evictions and rent increases for nearly 1.6 million New York renters.

The GCE bill’s ill-conceived language would allow a temporary roommate to dig in at a cash-crunched college student’s apartment; vacationing Airbnb guests to stay indefinitely in a Lake Placid cottage; and a wealthy tenant in a luxury Manhattan high-rise to refuse a rent increase of even $10 a month to help cover badly needed building maintenance.

Simply put, the GCE bill labels nearly anyone who pays another person to occupy real estate in New York as a tenant, while limiting their removal to the narrowest of circumstances.

In essence, the GCE bill creates automatic lease renewal rights, even when tenants behave improperly and landlords

As seen in Law360

By Alexander Lycoyannis March 3, 2022

seek to take back units for personal reasons or to renovate and sell buildings. The bill’s name is a marketing mechanism based on the supposed premise that tenants can only be evicted for good causes such as failing to pay rent, damaging apartments or using them for illegal purposes.

In practice, however, the GCE bill would lead to expensive, time-consuming litigation for even the most cut-and-dried instances of nonpayment and lease violations, while creating

23

24

PUBLICATIONS

a sky-high bar for eviction. Moreover, the legislation would

By contrast, S. 3082 contains far fewer bases for eviction and

essentially freeze rents, with property owners subsidizing

far more means for tenants to challenge landlords. Crucially,

all tenants regardless of income and their ability to afford

New York tenants can in some instances successfully fight

increases.

eviction under the GCE bill by arguing a landlord is seeking to avoid the bill’s intent — whatever that might be, given that

S. 3082 is drafted so poorly that lawmakers’ assertions about

the bill neither clearly defines its intent nor what avoiding it

its effects are refuted by the bill’s language. For instance,

means.

while supporters have asserted that the GCE bill does not apply to condominiums and cooperatives, the bill’s language

Overall, the GCE bill would not only provide far fewer bases

clearly states otherwise.

to remove troublesome tenants than analogous laws in other states, but massively disincentivizes attempting eviction

And while the bill supposedly applies only to tenants, in truth

even where good cause purportedly exists. Any tenant could

the bill’s language permits anyone in possession of real

tie up any landlord in court, wasting considerable time and

property in exchange for monetary consideration — such as a

resources on discovery and fact-finding, in just about any

weekend Airbnb guest — to remain in possession forever.

eviction proceeding commenced under the GCE bill.

S. 3082 permits tenants to challenge unreasonable rent

Many questionable assumptions underlie the GCE bill’s

increases without defining such term. It states that a rent

extreme provisions. One faulty premise is that, without such

increase of 3% or 1.5 times the regional consumer price index

a measure, New York landlords would default to capriciously

is presumptively unreasonable, but notably does not provide

raising rent with no regard for retaining good tenants who

that rent increases below those amounts are presumptively

regularly pay the rent.

reasonable. Thus, tenants are free to challenge even small rent increases as unreasonable, even where the increase is

Such a cartoonish portrayal of real property owners is

essential for the maintenance of a safe building.

divorced from the reality that owners usually avoid eviction proceedings unless absolutely necessary and value

The consequences are not difficult to foresee. Property

dependable rent-paying tenants over vacant apartments.

owners would be disincentivized from raising rents at all due to the threat of litigation, and as a result would not have the

Another erroneous assumption behind the bill’s sweeping

income streams necessary to perform necessary repairs and

language is that all tenants wish to challenge all rent

upgrades — leading to the degradation of New York’s housing

increases and evictions, even those that make buildings safer

stock.

or improve quality of life by removing nuisance neighbors.

The GCE bill’s supporters claim that it is nearly identical to

Yet, even New York’s largest landlord for low-income renters,

statutes in effect elsewhere, including in Oregon, Washington,

the New York City Housing Authority, requires tenants to

California and especially New Jersey. These assertions do

sign leases providing that tenants are subject to eviction for

not withstand scrutiny. For one thing, New Jersey tenants

nonpayment of rent, and that dangerous persons can face

must show that a proposed rent increase is unconscionable

permanent exclusion.

(i.e. that it “shocks the conscience”), not merely unreasonable as with the GCE bill.

Under the GCE bill, a building owner who scrimped and saved to buy and renovate a run-down apartment complex in

Further, New Jersey’s statute contains at least eight additional

a struggling neighborhood cannot evict tenants to improve the

grounds for eviction over and above New York’s list, from

building after their leases expire.

habitual failure to pay rent to property theft convictions, threatening behavior toward landlords, and landlords selling

That same new building owner cannot even pay to

or converting properties.

temporarily house the tenants elsewhere without their

PUBLICATIONS

consent. And, even if the owner could temporarily relocate

into by real property owners and their tenants.

the tenants, the rent increases necessary to fund renovations

Few if any would contest the need for increased affordable

and upgrades would be difficult to justify, especially if they are

housing across New York state. However, the answer is

more than 3% or 1.5 times the consumer price index.

not legislation that unconstitutionally seizes property rights and grants virtually any real property occupant near-eternal

Adding to the destruction of basic property rights, S. 3082

possession rights regardless of behavior, offering landlords

prohibits owners of buildings with 12 or more units from

little recourse or recompense.

reclaiming apartments for personal uses such as providing housing for their unemployed or sick family members.

In theory, landlords with buildings containing five to 11 units could claim an immediate and compelling need to retake apartments, but such a standard has historically proven difficult to meet.

Incredibly, owners could even face extreme difficulty recovering possession from tenants illegally renting their apartments to short-term guests through services like Airbnb.

The bill only permits the eviction of such tenants if landlords can convince local governments to issue vacate orders. But most local governments, New York City included, instead usually opt to fine landlords when their tenants break shortterm rental laws.

In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid last year, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state regulation compelling property owners to permit certain individuals access to real property for three hours per day and 120 days per year was a per se physical taking for which just compensation is required.

If such part-time compelled access is an unconstitutional taking, then it logically follows that forcing New York owners to allow tenants to permanently remain in dwellings even after leases expire must also be an unconstitutional taking of private property.

S. 3082 also would violate the U.S. Constitution’s contract clause by conferring a right to perpetual occupancy that supersedes the limited period set forth in a lease or rental agreement. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s recent ruling in Melendez v. City of New York makes clear, the contract clause is alive and well and works to safeguard and preserve leases and other contracts entered

25

26

PUBLICATIONS

The HSTPA, effective June 14, 2019, was a watershed

HSTPA and Luxury Deregulation On Feb. 24 of this year, the First Department, in ‘160 E. 84th St. Assoc. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,’ answered the question of whether an apartment is deemed “lawfully deregulated” on the date of the deregulation order, or on the later expiration date of the lease in effect. In their Rent Regulation column, Warren Estis and Jeffrey Turkel discuss the issue.

event in New York City rent regulation. Among its most consequential provisions was Part D, which repealed highrent and high-income luxury deregulation. L. 2019, ch 36, pt.

D, §4. Luxury deregulation had been a prominent feature of the RSL since 1993.

Several days later, the Legislature enacted an HSTPA “cleanup” bill to address various ambiguities and omissions in the HSTPA. L. 2019, ch 39, pt. Q, §8 amended the luxury deregulation repeal language to provide that: This act shall take effect immediately, provided however, that (i) any unit that was lawfully deregulated prior to June 14, 2019 shall remain deregulated…

DHCR high-income deregulation orders had always been made effective on the expiration date of the stabilized lease in effect at the time the order was issued. Thus, for example, an order of deregulation may have been issued in 2018, but would not become effective upon the expiration of the lease in 2020. The question thus arose as to whether an apartment is deemed “lawfully deregulated” on the date of the deregulation order, or on the later expiration date of the lease in effect.

On Feb. 24, 2022, the First Department answered that question in 160 E. 84th St. Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal.

Some Background When the HSTPA was enacted, thousands of rent regulation cases were pending before DHCR and the courts. As such, the issue of whether the HSTPA could be retroactively applied naturally came to the fore.

In Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 NY3d 332 (2020), various landlords argued that it would be unconstitutional to retroactively apply Part F of the HSTPA (relating to rent overcharges) to pending cases. By a 4-3 margin, the Court of

As seen in the New York Law Journal

By Jeffrey Turkel March 1, 2022

Appeals agreed: The Legislature is entitled to impose new burdens and grant new rights in order to address societal issues and, in enacting the HSTPA, it sought to alleviate a pressing affordable housing shortage that it rationally deemed warranted action.

But there is a critical distinction for purposes of a due process analysis between prospective and retroactive legislation. As the Supreme Court has observed, retroactive legislation that reaches particularly far into the past and that imposes liability

PUBLICATIONS

of a high magnitude relative to the impacted parties’ conduct raises substantial questions of fairness. In the retroactivity

DHCR denied the landlord’s PAR on July 23, 2020. DHCR

context, a rational justification is one commensurate with

wrote in relevant part:

the degree of disruption to settled, substantial rights and, in this instance, that standard has not been met. Thus the

The Commissioner…rejects the owner’s contentions that

overcharge calculation and treble damages provisions in

DHCR erred by applying HSTPA’s repeal of…High Income/

Part F may not be applied retroactively, and these appeals

High Rent retroactively and that DHCR incorrectly applied

must be resolved under the law in effect at the time the

HSTPA to a previously issued final order of deregulation. The

overcharges occurred. (internal citation and quotation marks

January 7, 2019 order specifically conditioned deregulation

omitted).

upon ‘the expiration of an existing lease.’ In other words, the order did not say that the subject unit was immediately

35 NY3d at 385-86.

deregulated. On June 14, 2019, HSTPA repealed the high rent/high income deregulation provisions under which the

Although Part F could not be applied retroactively, Part D

above order was issued.

proved to be another matter. *

*

*

DHCR Proceedings In 160 E. 84th St. Assoc., the First Department decided three

The application of the HSTPA to this matter is not based upon

separate article 78 proceedings, with the other two cases

the independent judgment of the rent agency, but, rather, it

concerning apartments at 125 East 85th Street. Because the

is pursuant to the plain text in HSTPA, and the rent agency

facts of all three cases are essentially similar, this article will

is statutorily obliged to apply HSTPA to all cases where the

recite the facts involving 160 East 84th Street.

lease expires on or after June 14, 2019. The fact that the 2018 petition is determined based on tenant income in 2016-

On June 29, 2018, almost a year before the HSTPA became

2017, events that occurred before the passage of the HSTPA,

law, the landlord filed with DHCR a petition to deregulate

is of no matter. The order of deregulation was conditioned on

apartment 12G based on high income. On Jan. 7, 2019,

the expiration of a lease which, if it did not occur before June

DHCR’s Rent Administrator issued an order of deregulation

14, 2019, precludes deregulation.

based upon the tenants’ admission that their household income exceeded the luxury deregulation threshold. Notably,

The Article 78 Proceeding

the order of deregulation provided that “the subject housing

The landlord in 160 E. 84th St. Assoc. thereafter commenced

accommodation is deregulated effective upon the expiration

an article 78 proceeding. 2022 WL 196445 (Sup Ct, NY

of the existing lease.” That lease would expire on June 30,

County 2021). Justice Carol R. Edmead denied the landlord’s

2019.

petition and affirmed DHCR’s EA.

On Sept. 6, 2019, after the HSTPA was enacted and after the

(as here) the New York State Department of Taxation and

tenants’ lease had expired, DHCR issued an “Explanatory

Finance certifies that the tenant’s income is above the

Addenda to Order” (EA) which it served upon the landlord and

deregulation threshold, DHCR shall issue “an order providing

the tenants. The EA stated that based on DHCR’s reading of

that such housing accommodation shall not be subject to

the HSTPA and the relevant language in the “cleanup” bill,

the provisions of the RSL upon the expiration of the existing

any deregulation order concerning an apartment whose lease

lease.”

The court cited RSC §2531.3, which states that where

expired after June 14, 2019 would remain subject to rent stabilization. Thus, according to DHCR, its Jan. 7, 2019 order

Thus, under DHCR’s own regulation, it was proper for the

was rendered a nullity by the HSTPA.

Rent Administrator to determine that deregulation would not become effective until June 30, 2019, when the tenants’

The landlord then filed a Petition for Administrative Review

lease expired. Citing Matter of Classic Realty v New York

from the Sept. 6, 2019 EA, arguing that DHCR could not use

State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2 NY3d 142

the HSTPA to vitiate a final and binding order of deregulation

(2004), Supreme Court noted that “New York courts routinely

that was premised on the tenants’ own admission that their

acknowledged” that high rent deregulation orders “would take

income was above the statutory threshold for deregulation.

effect after the expiration of an existing rent-stabilized lease term.”

27

28

PUBLICATIONS

Curiously, Supreme Court did not mention former RSL §26-504.3(c)(2), cited in Classic Realty, which provided that after both landlord and tenant were given an opportunity to comment on a preliminary finding as to the tenant’s income, “the division shall, where appropriate, issue an order providing that such housing accommodation shall not be subject to the provisions of this law upon the expiration of the existing lease.”

Lastly, Supreme Court, distinguishing Regina, held that DHCR did not err by applying HSTPA Part D retroactively.

The First Department Affirms On Feb. 24, 2022, the First Department affirmed Supreme Court in all respects. Addressing the issue of retroactivity, the court held: The article 78 court correctly rejected petitioners’ argument that DHCR’s September 2019 addenda explaining the effect of HSTPA part D on the deregulation orders improperly gave retroactive effect to the statute. Part D repealed certain rent deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law, effective June 14, 2019, the date of enactment. Later in June 2019, Part D was amended to state, in pertinent part: ‘This act shall take effect immediately; provided, however that (i) any unit that was lawfully deregulated prior to June 14, 2019 shall remain deregulated.’ That exception did not apply to the instant case, in which the three subject leases expired on June 30, 2019. DHCR’s deregulation orders, issued in January, February and April 2019, stated prospectively that the subject apartment units would become deregulated ‘[u] pon the expiration of the existing lease[s].’ (internal citations omitted).

The First Department continued: DHCR’s addenda explained that the effect of HSTPA part D was to prohibit the deregulation of units with leases expiring after June 14, 2019. That is, they simply noted the prospective effect of the June 14, 2019 statute on subsequently expiring leases. Thus, in this case, the statute ‘affect[ed] only the propriety of prospective relief…[and] ha[d] no potentially problematic retroactive effect.’

PUBLICATIONS

29

30

PUBLICATIONS

Good Cause Eviction legislation an absurd proposal

There is nothing “good” about the so-called “Good Cause Eviction” bill being considered in New York’s Legislature, including its glaringly inaccurate name.

“No Eviction Ever” is a more fitting moniker.

Sweeping in scope and full of ambiguous language, the proposal would create automatic lease renewal rights and universal rent controls for 1.6 million New York renters, under the guise of requiring good reasons to evict tenants.

The measure’s “good causes” might seem simple, including regularly failing to pay rent, damaging residences and using them illegally. But the proposal by state Sen. Julia Salazar, D-Brooklyn, also lets tenants fight many attempts to recover possession simply by saying owners are attempting to avoid the bill’s “intent,” despite no definition for the measure’s intent or what avoiding it means.

Similarly, the bill permits tenants to challenge any rent hike, even negligible increases for essential repairs, as “unreasonable.” A renter in a luxury high-rise could challenge even a $50 rent increase, and the owner would be forced to justify it to the court.

Indeed, any rent increase of greater than 3 percent or 1.5 times the regional Consumer Price Index, whichever is higher, is assumed to be “unreasonable” unless the owner can prove otherwise.

In short, the proposal would turn even the most cut-anddried lease violations, including for nonpayment of rent, into resource-intensive litigation.

Supporters argue that the statewide Good Cause Eviction proposal is similar to laws passed locally in New York and in

As seen in the Albany Times Union

By Alexander Lycoyannis March 2, 2022

other states.

But New York’s radical statewide bill would go much further than other laws, including the New Jersey law to which New York’s proposal is most often compared. In the Garden State, rent increases of any amount are permitted so long as they are not “unconscionable”— a high standard meaning they don’t “shock the conscience.”

PUBLICATIONS

New Jersey’s current law also has at least eight additional grounds for eviction not within New York’s proposal, including habitual nonpayment of rent, property theft convictions, threatening landlords and owners selling or converting properties.

Absurdly, New York’s proposal turns nearly anyone who pays another person to occupy real estate into “tenants” entitled to protection. A temporary roommate could remain in a renter’s apartment and not be compelled to leave; a short-term vacationer who rents a mountain cabin for a week can stay permanently and turn it into his new summer home; and a college student could remain in her dorm room while school is out of session.

Moreover, the bill - contrary to already-existing New York law - would freely permit tenants to rent their apartments on a short-term basis and would render owners powerless to stop the situation.

Alarmingly, supporters’ statements about the bill are often at odds with its language. For example, a plain reading of the bill reveals it would apply to condominiums and cooperatives.

And, despite assurances to the contrary, it also would be extraordinarily difficult to impossible for building owners with five or more units to reclaim them for personal use.

A building owner who saves to buy and fix a run-down apartment complex in a struggling neighborhood would be unable to recover possession from tenants after their leases expire and, further, would be prohibited from temporarily housing tenants elsewhere without their consent during renovations.

Owners have no desire to indiscriminately evict tenants and overwhelmingly value stable buildings. Owners and tenants alike agree that New York needs more affordable housing. The answer, however, is not a bill that would unconstitutionally violate an owner’s property ownership and possession rights and confer upon tenants all of the benefits of property ownership with none of the burdens.

31

32

PUBLICATIONS

Albany’s ‘No Eviction Ever’ bill will devastate landlords — and NY’s housing stock

An Airbnb user who never intends to leave. Tenants not paying enough rent to keep up buildings. A roommate temporarily renting a room who later decides not to move out.

Under the Legislature’s misleadingly named “Good Cause Eviction” bill, these occupants can all remain in their apartments forever and the property owner has virtually no recourse.­ “No Eviction Ever” would be a better name for an absurdly vague, sweeping proposal that would place strict new limits on rent increases and evictions for nearly 1.6 million New York renters.

While some revisions are likely, the business community and real-estate industry nonetheless fear it’ll become law with its devastating core elements intact.

The bill broadly defines nearly anyone who pays another person to occupy real estate in New York as a “tenant” and expressly prevents landlords from removing them except in the narrowest circumstances.

Aimed at imposing draconian restrictions on free-market apartments, the measure would create automatic leaserenewal rights even when tenants behave badly or landlords want to reclaim units for personal uses or to fix and sell buildings.

In theory, the bill lets landlords evict tenants for “good causes,” such as failing to pay rent, damaging apartments or using them for illegal purposes. But “No Eviction Ever” would turn even the simplest instances of nonpayment and lease violations into expensive, time-consuming court cases by setting the eviction bar impossibly high.

As seen in the New York Post

By Alexander Lycoyannis February 18, 2022

Consider rent increases. According to the bill, increases above 3 percent or 1.5 times the regional Consumer Price Index, whichever is higher, are presumed to be “unreasonable,” and not permitted. Worse, the bill leaves it to the court’s discretion to rule that any rent increase — even below 3 percent or 1.5 times CPI — is “unreasonable.”

That means tenants could challenge all rent hikes — even those for trivial amounts or those desperately needed for maintenance.

PUBLICATIONS

The bill, which assumes tenants never support evictions

through services like Airbnb. The bill would only let landlords

of bad neighbors, amounts to a particularly damaging type

evict such tenants if property owners can convince

of universal rent control in which tenants’ rents would be

local governments to issue “vacate orders.” Yet most

essentially frozen in place.

municipalities, including New York City, don’t typically issue such orders. Instead, they fine landlords when tenants break

Property owners would end up subsidizing all tenants, even

laws pertaining to short-term rentals.

those in luxury apartments who could easily afford increases.

Landlords would defer or skip repairs and upgrades to avoid

This would be a double whammy for New York landlords: a

the court battles necessary to fund them. This would harm

tenant who can’t be removed, coupled with government fines

everyone involved, reducing the quality of New York’s housing

for not removing that same tenant.

stock.

Everyone wants to make New York more affordable. But the The bill’s proponents claim the bill mirrors laws in other

answer is not to violate constitutionally protected private-

states, including New Jersey. But New York’s proposal has

property rights, effectively transferring ownership of rental

far fewer grounds — and much less solid ground — for

properties to tenants, regardless of their behavior.

landlords to evict tenants. Under New York’s bill, a tenant could successfully fight eviction by claiming the landlord is attempting to avoid the bill’s “intent,” whatever that may be, since the bill does not clearly define its intent or what “avoiding” it means.

Other states’ laws also provide landlords much greater leeway to raise rents. A Jersey tenant must show that a rent increase is “unconscionable” — i.e., so unfair or unjust that it “shocks the conscience.”

Plus, the Garden State has at least eight additional eviction justifications beyond New York’s list, including habitual failure to pay rent, property-theft convictions, threats toward landlords and owners selling or converting properties.

New York’s “No Eviction Ever” bill, on the other hand, would completely prevent the owners of buildings with 12 or more units from reclaiming apartments for personal uses like providing housing for their unemployed or sick family members. (Owners of buildings with five to 11 units could claim an “immediate and compelling” need to take back apartments.)

On top of all that, New York’s already overburdened courts are ill-equipped to deal with more “immediate and compelling” cases.

Finally, “No Eviction Ever” outrageously protects tenants who illegally rent their apartments as short-term guests

33

34

PUBLICATIONS

The ‘Good Cause

New York State lawmakers are currently considering Sen-

Eviction’ Bill: A Proposal

bill (GCE). GCE is a sweeping proposal that would apply to

Under Consideration

regulation or owner-occupied buildings with fewer than four

In their Landlord-Tenant column, Warren Estis and Alexander Lycoyannis review and analyze Senate Bill S3082, also known as the “Good Cause Eviction” bill currently under proposal in Albany which could impact free-market housing accommodations in New York State.

ate Bill S3082, also known as the “Good Cause Eviction” virtually all free-market housing accommodations in New York State; it would not apply to apartments already subject to rent units (together with other very narrow exceptions). GCE’s backers and opponents are engaged in intense lobbying efforts in Albany and throughout the state.

While it is unclear whether GCE will become law, all real estate practitioners should be familiar with its provisions given its wide scope and its possible enactment. (In the interest of full disclosure, one of this column’s authors, Alexander Lycoyannis, testified before a New York State Senate committee in opposition to S3082 on Jan. 7, 2022.)

GCE provides that unless an owner establishes to a court’s satisfaction one of several specified grounds for removal, “[n] o landlord shall remove a tenant from any housing accommodation, or attempt such removal or exclusion from possession, notwithstanding that the tenant has no written lease or that the lease or other rental agreement has expired or otherwise terminated…”

In other words, GCE essentially eliminates the concept of a fixed-term residential lease in housing accommodations to which it applies. The default position in any landlord-tenant dispute, even where the lease expires, would be that unless the owner can affirmatively establish “good cause” to evict, the tenant is entitled to remain in possession.

The grounds for “good cause” to remove a tenant are limited.

“Unreasonable” Rent Increases The nonpayment of rent is one “good cause” for eviction.

However, the tenant’s obligation to pay rent is modified by

As seen in New York Law Journal

By Alexander Lycoyannis February 1, 2022

the requirement that the unpaid rent not be the result of an “unreasonable” rent increase. Notably, the bill does not define “unreasonable.” S3082 does declare that a rent increase above 3% or 150% of CPI, whichever is greater, is presumptively unreasonable, but the bill pointedly does not state that a rent increase below those amounts is presumptively reasonable. Thus, tenants would be free to challenge a rent increase

PUBLICATIONS

of any amount as “unreasonable.”

subject to criminal or civil penalties as a result—but only if a vacate order is issued.

While they could theoretically defeat claims of unreasonable rent increases in court, owners would need to seriously

This would mean, for example, that a tenant operating an ille-

consider whether any prospective rent increase would justify

gal short-term rental business via Airbnb or similar platforms

the attendant legal expense necessary to defend it as “rea-

(see e.g. Multiple Dwelling Law § 4[8][a]) may continue to do

sonable.” Furthermore, reasonableness is generally a factual

so without fearing eviction as long as the local municipality

question, so court decisions declaring the reasonableness

does not issue a vacate order—which is often the case, with

or unreasonableness of rent increases in certain situations

New York City usually opting instead to issue violations to the

may provide limited guidance to owners and their counsel in

owner. Thus, an owner could be faced with a steady stream

setting appropriate rents.

of government fines for the conduct of a tenant it is powerless to remove.

Moreover, a tenant may also challenge any rent increase—or the separate “good cause” basis that the tenant has violat-

Other “Good Cause” Bases

ed a substantial obligation of the tenancy—as having been

Other “good cause” justifications include nuisance, using the

imposed “for the purpose of circumventing the intent of this

apartment for illegal purposes (such as, for example, drug

article.” However, neither GCE’s “intent” nor acts that would

dealing or prostitution) and refusal of access. In general,

constitute “circumventing” it are defined in S3082’s language,

however, all “good cause” bases would likely require discov-

and thus would have to be ascertained by the courts.

ery, extensive fact-finding and considerable legal expense to establish.

In sum, GCE would strongly incentivize owners to simply leave rents at current levels and avoid the time and expense

Broad Language

necessary to justify even small rent increases in New York

Notably, GCE could apply far beyond standard land-

court proceedings.

lord-tenant relationships. The bill’s definitions of “landlord,” “tenant,” “rent” and “housing accommodation” are very broad

Owner’s Use

and, arguably, could grant virtually any person in occupancy

At the Jan. 7 hearing, GCE’s proponents asserted that

of real property the right to remain in possession over the

owner’s use is readily available as a “good cause” basis for

owner’s wishes, notwithstanding the initial terms on which

eviction.

that person entered the property.

However, the bill’s language reveals that for buildings with 12

Specifically, S3082 defines a “landlord” to include, among

or more units, owner’s use recovery is entirely unavailable.

other things, “any…person receiving or entitled to receive

And, in buildings with fewer than 12 units, recovery of a single

rent for the occupancy of any housing accommodation,” and

apartment would only be available if the owner can demon-

a “tenant” to include “any… person entitled to the possession,

strate “immediate and compelling necessity” — a difficult

use or occupancy of any housing accommodation.” Addition-

standard to meet which would, again, require significant legal

ally, the bill defines “rent” to include “any consideration…de-

expense with no certainty of success (see e.g. Buhagiar v. NY

manded or received for or in connection with the possession,

State Div of Hous & Comm Renewal, 138 AD2d 226 [1st Dept

use or occupancy of housing accommodations,” and “housing

1988]; Pam v. Weaver, 9 Misc 2d 1029 [Sup Ct, Kings County

accommodation” to include “any residential premises.”

1957]; Hammond v. Marcely, 58 NYS 2d 565[Mun Ct 1945]).

Thus, for example, (1) a roommate, (2) a college student Occupancy Causes Violation of Law

living in a dormitory, and (3) a weeklong vacation home renter

“Good cause” also exists if occupancy by the tenant is in

arguably could not be evicted when their terms of occupancy

violation of law or causes a violation of law, and the owner is

expire unless “good cause” exists.

35

36

PUBLICATIONS

Additionally, at the Jan. 7 hearing, several senators asserted that GCE is not intended to apply to condominiums and cooperatives. However, the definitions above seem to provide otherwise. Indeed, should the application of GCE to a cooperative or condominium unit be challenged in court, the statutory language would likely control over any alleged contrary legislative intent (see e.g. Kuzmich v. 50 Murray St. Acquisition LLC, 34 NY3d 84 [2019]).

Constitutional Questions Should it become law, GCE could be vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that a state regulation compelling property owners to permit certain individuals access to real property for three hours per day, 120 days per year was a per se physical taking for which just compensation is required (see Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S Ct 2063 [2021]). If requiring such limited access to real property is a physical taking requiring just compensation, then it can certainly be argued that eliminating fixed-term leases and compelling continuous occupancy of real property over the owner’s objection is also an unconstitutional taking (see also Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, 141 S Ct 2226 [2021]).

In addition, the Contract Clause provides that “[n]o state shall…pass any…Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1). It could be argued that GCE impairs the obligation of contracts in that it impairs a lease or rental agreement for a defined period at the conclusion of which the tenant or occupant must vacate, and instead confers perpetual occupancy rights (see e.g. Melendez v. City of New York, 16 F4th 992, 999 [2d Cir 2021]).

Conclusion As of this writing, it does not appear that S3082 has moved forward in the New York Legislature since the Jan. 7 Senate committee hearing. Additionally, there are conflicting reports about GCE’s level of support in the Legislature as well as when, or if, its backers intend to push the bill forward during this legislative term. Nevertheless, it is not a stretch to say that the New York real estate industry is intensely focused on the possibility of GCE becoming law and, if enacted, the profound effect it would have on New York’s free-market housing stock.

PUBLICATIONS

37

38

PRESS RELEASES

Rosenberg & Estis Names Zachary J. Rothken As Member, Head Of Administrative Law Department

Featuring Zachary J. Rothken June 28, 2022

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. has announced the promotion

Named to the New York Super Lawyers Rising Stars list from

of Zachary J. Rothken to Member and Head of the firm’s

2020-22, Rothken has earned a reputation as a well-regarded

acclaimed Administrative Law Department.

expert in rent regulation and its practical ramifications for 21st century property owners.

Rothken joined the firm’s Administrative Law Department in 2018 as an experienced lawyer in the field, working closely

Rothken’s practice focuses on complex regulatory issues

with firm leadership from day one.

concerning rent stabilization and rent control. He counsels prospective purchasers, sellers and lenders in performing due

Rothken succeeds Blaine Z. Schwadel, who joined

diligence on properties that are subject to rent regulation.

Rosenberg & Estis in 1979 and will remain as Special Counsel with the Administrative Law Department. Rothken

He also represents property owners in administrative

will oversee all of Rosenberg & Estis’ administrative law

proceedings before DHCR and Article 78 proceedings,

matters, including regulatory due diligence, administrative

including claims concerning rent overcharge, substantial

proceedings before DHCR, regulatory compliance and Article

rehabilitation, luxury deregulation and reduction of services.

78 litigation.

Rothken, who holds bar admissions in New York, New Jersey “I’m proud to carry on Rosenberg & Estis’ five-decade

and the U.S. District Court’s District of New Jersey, earned

tradition of comprehensive real estate representation,”

a bachelor’s from Yeshiva University in 2009 and a J.D. at

Rothken said. “More than ever before, property owners,

Hofstra University School of Law in 2013.

landlords and other industry professionals need superior representation to deal with a litany of local laws, regulations

While at law school, Rothken served as Articles Editor for

and pandemic-age challenges.”

the Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal. Rothken also currently serves on the Village of Chestnut Ridge Planning

“Zachary J. Rothken has a keen eye, a strong legal intellect

Board. Rothken continues to periodically offer commentary

and a relentless determination to safeguard clients’ best

and expertise on the law, including co-authoring a well-

interests,” said Michael E. Lefkowitz, Managing Member of

received article, published in the New York Law Journal, titled

Rosenberg & Estis. “We are pleased that he will offer these

“Commercial Rent Control Effort Defined by Confusion and

skills as he leads the Administrative Law Department at a

Unintended Consequences.”

critical time for the industry.”

PRESS RELEASES

Among Rothken’s notable recent cases are Armstrong, et al., v. Dumbo Lofts, heard in state Supreme Court in Kings County. Rothken attained partial summary judgment against the tenants, including the dismissal of nearly all the claims made by three of four plaintiff-tenants in the case against a Brooklyn landlord. The Court also roundly rejected the parties’ claims that the owner engaged in a scheme to defraud the tenants to overcharge rent despite receiving tax benefits associated with rent-stabilized leases.

In Westchester Plaza Tenants Association v. DHCR, et al., filed in state Supreme Court in Westchester County, Rothken successfully fended off a significant Article 78 proceeding brought by a tenants’ association in a thorny, building-wide service reduction/modification of services proceeding that had a protracted and well-publicized history.

39

40

PRESS RELEASES

Rosenberg & Estis Secures PrecedentSetting Victory In Rent Dispute With The Gap And Old Navy

Featuring Norman Flitt, Alex M. Estis and Laura Raheb June 22, 2022

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. has successfully defeated an appeal

evicting a tenant for an alleged breach of the lease, such as

by The Gap Inc. and Old Navy LLC in an action seeking,

not paying rent.

among other things, to terminate the long-term leases at their flagship stores in the heart of Times Square and avoid paying

The Gap and Old Navy had argued that they had suffered

millions of dollars of both past-due and current rent to their

“frustration of purpose” when state mandates shut down

landlord, 44-45 Broadway Leasing Co., LLC.

stores at the height of the pandemic. However, Justice James, in her original ruling, pointed to curbside and in-store

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the order of

pickup options that were launched within weeks and the

Justice Debra A. James in Supreme Court, New York County

stores’ ability to reopen fully from June 2021.

(Index No. 652549/2020) and awarded the landlord costs associated with the appeal. The Gap Inc. and Old Navy LLC

“The Court has recognized that when you enter into a

were previously ordered to pay $24 million in unpaid and back

contract, you need to honor the terms of the agreement.

rent to their landlord.

Here, the agreement did not afford the tenants any rent abatement as a result of the closures mandated during the

Norman Flitt, Member, Alex M. Estis, Of Counsel, and Laura

COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the tenants’ claims that the

Raheb, Associate, with Rosenberg & Estis, represented 44-

‘flagship’ status of their stores elevated those stores above

45 Broadway Leasing Co., LLC in the appeal. The Appellate

the well-established law, the Court soundly rejected the

Division rejected all of the tenants’ claims that it should be

tenants’ claims that the doctrine of ‘frustration of purpose’

able to shutter their two stores at 1530 Broadway and write

afforded tenants the requested relief and recognized that the

off rent because it was impossible to operate a “flagship”

leases did not support any claim for a rent abatement either in

store in the heart of Times Square during COVID.

whole or in part,” said Norman Flitt, who successfully argued the case before the Appellate Division.

Throughout the case – which was commenced in June 2020 when the tenants filed their complaint and moved

“This case will stand as ‘flagship’ precedent for commercial

contemporaneously for a Yellowstone injunction – the

landlords of iconic, flagship locations as this decision should

Rosenberg & Estis team successfully advanced the

put to rest similar baseless claims by other commercial

Landlord’s interests. The tenants had argued that the lack

tenants based on these COVID defenses,” said Alex M. Estis.

of retail business during COVID should qualify them for the so-called Yellowstone injunction that prevents a landlord

The original lead attorney on this case, Warren A. Estis, who

PRESS RELEASES

recently passed away in April 2022, felt strongly that this case would establish a strong precedent for landlords of iconic properties which have a unique rental value.

41

42

PRESS RELEASES

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Represents The Durst Organization, Facilitating $100m Redevelopment Loan For 825 Third Ave. Construction loan to fund repositioning of flagship Midtown East office tower Featuring Gary M. Rosenberg, Eric S. Orenstein, Dennis I. Hellman, Arielle Frost and Casey E. Delaney June 9, 2022

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. recently facilitated a $100 million

on which presentations can be projected, and white onyx

redevelopment loan, with JPMorgan Chase Bank and Wells

walls and terrazzo marble floors to adorn a new lobby.

Fargo Securities as co-lead arrangers and joint bookrunners, for The Durst Organization’s repositioning of 825 Third

The building’s new tenants also will enjoy a 3,000-square-foot

Avenue.

ground-floor lounge with coffee, wine and arcade games, the addition of 15,000 square feet of amenities such as a fitness

The three-year loan will help fund Durst’s recent $150 million

center on the second floor, and a new 12th-floor terrace.

overhaul, which added amenities and enhanced every facet

Plus, Durst added more efficient heating cooling systems and

of the 40-story office tower, from its lobby to elevators,

installed sensors to collect real-time air quality data on carbon

mechanical systems and windows. Gary M. Rosenberg, Eric

dioxide, humidity and other factors.

S. Orenstein, Dennis I. Hellman and Arielle Frost, Members in the Transactional Department of Rosenberg & Estis,

“Rosenberg & Estis is pleased to have facilitated financing

and Casey E. Delaney, an Associate in the department,

for the repositioning of this premier office tower,” Gary M.

represented Durst in the transaction.

Rosenberg said. “It is an ideal home for commercial tenants seeking best-in-class amenities in close proximity to abundant

Located on the eastern blockfront of Third Avenue, between East 50th and 51st streets, 825 Third Avenue is a Midtown East flagship for Durst, which originally constructed the Emery Roth & Sons-designed office tower in 1969. Random House initially leased the 544,000-square-foot building, which later became known as the headquarters of Advance Publications, parent of Condé Nast.

Durst began gut renovating the tower, after the publisher and the building’s subtenants vacated following the expiration of a 25-year ground lease. Among other improvements, Durst modernized the building’s facade and the ground-floor storefronts and added smart windows that tint automatically based on sunlight. Other upgrades include special windows

mass transit.”

PRESS RELEASES

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Represents Reuben Brothers In Robin Birley Lease Of Dining Club At 828 Madison Ave. Deal highlights commercial appeal of Madison Avenue shopping district

Featuring Eric S. Orenstein May 17, 2022

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York City’s premier real estate

story windows with ornamental lunettes and brick upper

law firm, has successfully negotiated a 20-year lease for

floors. Limestone quoins flank its towers.

Robin Birley, a developer of posh London clubs, to open a much anticipated dining club at 828 Madison Avenue in

“With this new lease, an iconic English hospitality operator

Manhattan.

will make his first American foray in New York City,” Orenstein said. “It’s a big win for the Big Apple,” Orenstein said.

The agreement, which includes an option for a 10year extension, calls for the club to occupy a two-story, 12,000-square-foot commercial space on the first floor and mezzanine levels at 828 Madison Ave., a luxury condominium tower between East 69th and East 70th streets.

Eric Orenstein, a member of Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. and leader of the firm’s Transactional Department, and Stefanie Graham, a member of the firm’s Transactional Department, negotiated the lease on behalf of Reuben Brothers, owner of the Upper East Side building.

The yet-to-be-named dining club’s creation will be subject to community board approvals regarding operations and hours and local permitting reviews. In a deal that Rosenberg & Estis also negotiated, Reuben Brothers, led by David and Simon Reuben, acquired the building’s commercial space last year from Vornado Realty.

Opened in 1926 as the former Westbury Hotel, the 15-story, neo-Renaissance building at 828 Madison Avenue includes corner towers, a three-story limestone base with retail space in the first two floors, Ionic pilasters flanking bays, second-

43

44

PRESS RELEASES

Rosenberg & Estis Notches Decisive Victory For Landlord In Guaranty Law Case, Securing $1 Million-Plus Settlement From A Commercial Tenant Featuring Brett B. Theis, Justin Weitzman and Alexander Yarm February 25, 2022

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., has achieved a decisive victory in

purpose” and “impossibility of performance,” the tenant

the Commercial Division of the New York County Supreme

argued in the ensuing litigation that it was not obligated to pay

Court, thwarting an attempt by four individual guarantors

rent while its subtenant remained in possession of the space.

of a Manhattan commercial lease to use the New York City

Additionally, the individual guarantors claimed that they were

Guaranty Law to avoid paying rent in the pandemic.

shielded by the protections afforded to religious organizations under New York City’s Guaranty Law based on the fact that

Brett Theis, a member of Rosenberg & Estis, and Justin

their subtenant was a religious organization. Rosenberg

Weitzman and Alexander Yarm, associates at the firm,

& Estis argued successfully that the Guaranty Law did not

represented the landlord-plaintiff, Broadway 1384 LLC, an

apply to the tenant and its guarantors because the tenant

entity owed by Juda Chetrit of The Chetrit Group. The case

was merely a sublandlord, which was not required to cease

involved the breach of a lease by the tenant-defendant, 560

business due to the government’s COVID-19 shutdown.

Seventh Ave. LLC, an entity owned by Sharif El-Gamal of Soho Properties, for office space at 1384 Broadway in the

Justice Joel M. Cohen agreed, and granted summary

Garment District, in addition to a breach of a commercial

judgment to Juda Chetrit against the tenant and its individual

lease guaranty by El-Gamal and three other individual

guarantors, ordering more than $1 million in back rent,

guarantors.

liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.

The parties quickly settled their dispute, with a $1 million-

The tenant leased the office space for the sole purpose

plus payment secured for the landlord, after Justice Cohen

of subleasing it to a religious group. El-Gamal had

granted summary judgment.

agreed to relocate the religious group from his Midtown development site at 570 7th Avenue, so he could construct

Signed by Mayor de Blasio in May 2020, the New York City

the Margaritaville Resort in Times Square, a 32-story

Council’s Guaranty Law provided rent relief to commercial

170,000-square-foot hotel. The tenant failed to pay rent,

tenants and their guarantors, under select conditions

beginning in April 2020, and the subtenant remained in

including the pandemic forcing their closure, for the period

possession of the office space following the expiration of the

between March 7, 2020 to June 30, 2021.

lease in June 2020 (after El-Gamal failed to extend the lease or relocate the subtenant).

“We’re pleased to recover a substantial sum for another one of our clients at a time when the decks have been unfairly

Citing COVID-19-related defenses such as “frustration of

stacked against landlords and the enforcement of arms-length

PRESS RELEASES

transactions,” Theis said. “The City Council hastily enacted the Guaranty Law in response to COVID-19, but it’s not a blanket ‘get out of jail free’ card. It needs to be carefully analyzed and applied very selectively.”

45

46

PRESS RELEASES

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Represents The Durst Organization For Broadcast License Agreements Independent Station WMBC & Spanish-Language Broadcaster WKOB Will Use Tower For TV Featuring Robert M. Kessler and Jean S. Tom February 10, 2022

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York City’s premier real

for its One World Trade Center and 4 Times Square towers.

estate law firm, recently served as legal counsel to the Durst

Among other telecommunications infrastructure uses,

Organization in deals to relocate WMBC and WKOB to the

Rosenberg & Estis negotiates agreements on behalf of

90th-floor broadcast facilities at One World Trade Center in

building owners with telecommunications providers for

Lower Manhattan.

various telecommunications infrastructure uses, including cell phones, television signals and fiber optic networks to provide

The deals, which allow WMBC and WKOB to broadcast

service to tenants at those buildings or to the general public.

their signals from the 408-foot spire that caps the 1,776-foot tower, underscore One World Trade Center’s unique stature

One World Trade Center’s latest broadcast additions include

among telecommunications companies in recent years, from

Newton, NJ-based WMBC, a free, independent commercial

TV stations to phone providers. Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. has

TV station that operates virtual channel 63 and UHF digital

previously served as legal counsel to the Durst Organization

channel 18. WMBC provides over-the-air programming

in deals to similarly relocate CBS, WNBC, WNJU, PBS, FOX

and high-definition service via cable, Fios and satellite TV

and ION Media to One World Trade Center.

throughout the New Jersey-New York Metro Area. The station offers children’s, general interest and news programming

Robert M. Kessler, a member, and Jean S. Tom, of counsel,

with broadcast and digital options in English and a variety

at Rosenberg & Estis represented the Durst Organization

of foreign languages, including Chinese, Spanish and East

in the WMBC and WKOB transactions. Robert Becker and

Indian.

Marc Musgrove handled negotiations for Durst Broadcasting LLC. Developed by The Port Authority of New York and New

WMBC’s broadcasting infrastructure will be decommissioned

Jersey, One World Trade Center is managed, operated,

at its current location, a 567-foot tower in Montclair, NJ,

and leased by The Durst Organization. The tower offers an

owned by the New Jersey Public Broadcasting Authority.

unparalleled platform for high-definition broadcasting and

Other current tower users will continue using the New Jersey

other wireless spectrum applications.

facilities. WKOB’s broadcasting infrastructure also will be decommissioned at its current broadcasting location, a tower

To date, the Rosenberg & Estis telecommunications

at the Trump World Tower at 845 United Nations Plaza, which

subspecialty team consisting of Mr. Kessler, Ms. Tom and

will still accommodate other broadcasters.

others has worked on more than 40 television and radio broadcast license agreements for the Durst Organization

WKOB is a low-powered TV station, serving New York City,

PRESS RELEASES

while operating local channel 2 and virtual channel 42. WKOB is a key East Coast Spanish-language affiliate for New York City-based Azteca América, a subsidiary of TV station owner INNOVATE Corp. WKOB broadcasts telenovelas, drama series, news programming, and reality and variety series. WKOB is mounting its new directional antenna atop communications ring 108 of One World Trade Center’s Master Antenna.

As the tallest building in the western hemisphere, One World Trade Center offers advanced communications and technology infrastructure and unobstructed 360-degree signals to serve the tri-state region. Its state-of-the-art master antenna system emits approximately 2.2 megawatts of effective radiated power. And with its patented variable polarization technology, One World Trade’s broadcasting system is positioned to offer NextGen TV service, also known as ATSC 3.0 NextGen TV. As new technologies emerge, Rosenberg & Estis will continue, and looks forward, to regularly representing building owners in the preparation and negotiation of agreements involving broadcast licenses, access, building space licenses and other transactions for telecommunications providers to gain building access to mount, build out and/or install equipment and wireless facilities.

47

48

EVENTS

RECENT EVENTS

EVENTS

REBNY GALA: NEW YORK FOREVER A CELEBRATION OF OUR CITY

R&E’S ANNUAL LITIGATION GROUP LUNCH

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 6.23.22

R&E Litigation Group, 6.23.22

Rosenberg & Estis was proud to continue its support of the Real Estate Board of New York at this year’s Gala, honoring our friends Jeff Levine and Hal Fetner. Pictured here from left to right are R&E Members Michael T. Carr, Arielle Frost, Deborah E. Riegel and Jason R. Davidson.

The Rosenberg & Estis Litigation Team gathered on the terrace for its annual group lunch. Thanks to all who were able to join! We were so fortunate to have breezy, beautiful weather as we at Middle Eastern cuisine from Naya. Here is a great shot of (from left to right) Moshe B. Nachum, Ethan R. Cohen, Brett B. Theis, Luise A. Barrack, Dejan Kezunovic, Thomas De Bow, Adam J. Lindenbaum and Joshua Burton.

SUMMER ASSOCIATES OUTING: ESCAPE THE ROOM!

CELEBRATION DINNER HONORING SCHWADEL, STONE AND TURKEL

R&E Summer Associates, 6.15.22

Rosenberg & Estis held a Summer Associates Outing at Escape The Room! Pictured from left to right are Ainsley Gilman, Sandy Yeung, Richard L. Sussman, Isabella Pisani and Jolie E. Meer as they finished the Jurassic Escape.

Blaine Z. Schwadel, Patti Stone and Jeffrey Turkel, 6.09.22

On June 9th, we had the great honor in gathering together to celebrate R&E legends Blaine Schwadel, Patti Stone and Jeffrey Turkel. Having been with the firm their entire careers it was a wonderful evening to pay tribute to what they’ve accomplished and to wish them continued and future success at the firm and beyond.

49

50

EVENTS

WELCOME LUNCH FOR 2022 SUMMER LAW CLERKS

LGBT BAR ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION’S ANNUAL GALA

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 6.01.22

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 05.26.21

Rosenberg & Estis attorneys gathered on the terrace for a meet-and-greet lunch welcoming our 2022 Summer Law Clerks. We are so thrilled to have Huey Chan, Collin Chipetine, Ainsley Gilman, Shayne Messing, Isabella Pisani, Cherry Srivastava and Sandy Yeung on our legal team this summer!

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. proudly attended the LGBT Bar Association Foundation of Greater New York’s Annual Gala and Community Excellence Awards at the Tribeca Rooftop. Pictured from left to right: Benjamin Z. Koblentz, Ethan R. Cohen, Deborah E. Riegel, Peter B. Kane and Anthony J. Virga.

THE NEW SCHOOL - 71ST ANNUAL PARSONS BENEFIT

CHAMPAGNE TOAST: CONGRATS TO OUR PROMOTED ATTORNEYS!

Brett B. Theis and Bradley S. Silverbush, 5.22.22

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 05.19.22

Rosenberg & Estis proudly continued its support of The New School at this year’s Parsons Benefit. This shot features Brett B. Theis (left) and Bradley S. Silverbush (right).

R&E attorneys gathered on the terrace for a celebratory champagne toast congratulating Ethan R. Cohen, Peter B. Kane, Cori A. Rosen, Zachary J. Rothken and Anthony J. Virga on their promotions from Of Counsel to Member, and Jake Bedor, Elizabeth M. Brown, Brendan J. Derr, Nicholas DiLorenzo, Alex M. Estis and Justin Weitzman on their promotions from Associate to Of Counsel. We are grateful to have such a deep roster of talented attorneys to adeptly handle our clients’ complex legal needs with great skill and enthusiasm.

EVENTS

ANNUAL BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL ALUMNI LUNCHEON Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 5.6.22

REALTY SPEAK: WHAT IS GOOD CAUSE EVICTION? NOTHING GOOD! Alexander Lycoyannis, 4.28.22

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. was honored to continue its support of Brooklyn Law School at the 2022 Annual BLS Alumni Luncheon. Pictured here are a few of our BLS alumni who were able to attend (from left to right): Alex M. Estis, Cori A. Rosen, Gary M. Rosenberg, Deborah E. Riegel, Richard B. Corde and Michael T. Carr.

Alexander Lycoyannis was a guest speaker on Bill Weidner’s Realty Speak podcast alongside Margie Russell (NYARM) and Anne Korchak (SPONY) to discuss Good Cause Eviction. Alexander explains in detail what Good Cause Eviction is and what it is not. Click here to listen.

NYCBA PODCAST: GOOD CAUSE EVICTION - PRO AND CON

BREAKING DOWN THE BITTER DIVIDE OVER GOOD CAUSE EVICTION IN NY

Alexander Lycoyannis, 4.13.22

Alexander Lycoyannis, 4.03.22

Dorothy Heyl, Chair of the City Bar Real Property Law Committee, speaks with Alex Lycoyannis, R&E member and member of the Real Property Law Committee, and Justin La Mort, Supervising Attorney for the housing rights project of Mobilization for Justice and former Real Property Law Committee Chair. Together they discuss the pros and cons of the proposed Good Cause Eviction bill. Click here to listen.

In this episode of Bisnow’s audio series, Bisnow Reports, Miriam Hall interviews R&E Member Alexander Lycoyannis and Judith Goldiner of The Legal Aid Society to gain insight into the proposed Good Cause Eviction bill. Lycoyannis, who represents landlords in litigation, argued the measure amounts to a “draconian rent control” system that is, in effect, a reversal of the concept of property ownership. “It’s just part of a larger anti-owner atmosphere that’s currently prevailing in the legislature,” he said on the podcast. Click here to listen.

51

52

EVENTS

DO YOU EVER WONDER ABOUT GOOD CAUSE EVICTION? (podcast)

TRI-STATE BISNOW MULTIFAMILY ANNUAL CONFERENCE

Alexander Lycoyannis, 3.22.22

Michael E. Lefkowitz, 3.22.22

Alexander Lycoyannis was a guest speaker on the “Do You Ever Wonder” podcast by Michael Haltman, Hallmark Abstract Service CEO. Click here to watch their discussion on Good Cause Eviction.

R&E Managing Member Michael E. Lefkowitz moderated the “Multifamily Lending: Debt Outlook” panel at Bisnow’s Tri-State Multifamily Annual Conference. The panel addressed key questions surrounding today’s real estate market, including: How has multifamily investment in NYC changed over the last two years, and what is the recovery arc? How are mortgage backed securities evolving in their use in the multifamily sector? Which market trends in multifamily are having the biggest impact on deal structure? This lively, in-person event at 360 Madison Avenue is further indication of New York’s return to normalcy as more and more firms return to their offices and re-engage with the real estate community.

NYMBA 2022 ADVOCACY DAY 3: GOOD CAUSE EVICTION Alexander Lycoyannis, 3.15.22

Alexander Lycoyannis was invited to speak at New York Mortgage Bankers Association’s Advocacy Conference on a panel discussing Good Cause Eviction.

Click here to watch the recording.

EVENTS

53

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. 733 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 T. 212 867 6000 www.rosenbergestis.com

This is published by the law firm Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. It is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion. Such advice may only be given when related to specific fact situations that Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. has accepted an engagement as counsel to address. ©2022 Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. | ATTORNEY ADVERTISING