Landlord-Tenant—Stabilization—Luxury Decontrol—Altman Issue Seemingly Resolved in 'Matter of 18 St. Marks Palace Trident LLC v. State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal'—Civil Court Opine That Altman Did Not Effect a “Sea Change in Nearly Two Decades of Settled Statutory and Decisional Law”

A landlord commenced a nonpayment proceeding. The landlord previously sent a rent demand, seeking $1,181.67 for May and $1,825 for June. The tenant answered and counterclaimed for a rent overcharge. The tenant thereafter moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the petition failed to state a cause of action because the predicate notice sought rent in excess of that allowed under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) and for damages based on the alleged overcharge.

The apartment was “last registered as rent stabilized in 2002. At that time tenant's legal regulated rent was $1,594.83.” Since 2003, the apartment was registered as “exempt due to high rent vacancy.” The tenant had moved into the apartment in 2011 and had initially been charged $1,700 per month. “The rent was raised to $1,775 in June 2015 and to $1,825 in June 2016.”