The Repeal of the Urstadt Law

City of N.Y. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal deregulate Alston v Starrett City

The End of Permanent MCI Rent Increases

permanent Ansonia Residents Ass'n v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

As we have recognized, the dual purposes of the Rent Stabilization Law were to protect tenants from eviction as a result of rapidly spiraling rent increases and to encourage future housing construction by allowing landlords reasonable rent increases so that they could profit from the operation of their properties. Thus an interpretation of section 26-511(c) to allow permanent rather than only temporary rent increases for major capital improvements serves the purposes of the Rent Stabilization Law by providing owners with an incentive to make improvements which benefit owners and tenants alike. Under the construction of the statute urged by the tenants, owners would have little incentive to invest in major capital improvements if they can only recover the cost of their investment, and in fact might incur additional expenses in maintaining such an improvement after its initial cost had been recovered. (Internal citation omitted).

The Repeal of Luxury Deregulation Based on Vacancy

Altman v. 285 West Fourth LLC

With regard to the high rent vacancy decontrol provisions of this bill, current rent regulation statutes define a 'housing emergency' as a vacancy rate of less than 5%. The vacancy rate for apartments renting at $2,000 or more, however, exceeds 12.5% (2.5 times the statutory standard). Thus, there is clearly no 'housing emergency' for apartments renting for more than $2000.

not Jeffrey Turkel is a member of Rosenberg & Estis and was the prevailing attorney in Altman v 285 West Fourth discussed in the article.