Suit Alleging Rent Overcharges at Buildings in Kushner Portfolio Clears Hurdle
Tenants of a Brooklyn building who say that Jared Kushner's real estate companies overcharged them on their rent may proceed with a proposed class action suit against entities that were controlled by President Donald Trump's son-in-law, a state court judge found.
October 12, 2018 at 05:06 PM
4 minute read
Tenants of a Brooklyn building who say that Jared Kushner's real estate companies overcharged them on their rent may proceed with a proposed class action suit against entities that were controlled by President Donald Trump's son-in-law, a state court judge found.
The suit, which concerns a residential building formerly owned by Brooklyn Law School, is one of a number of legal challenges launched against the Kushner real estate empire since Trump took office; Kushner, a senior adviser to his father-in-law, stepped down as CEO from Kushner Cos. prior to Trump's inauguration.
The tenants of 18 Sidney Place, located in Brooklyn Heights, alleged that, when Kushner became their landlord after he purchased the building in 2014, he charged them market-rate rent for units that were supposed to be rent stabilized.
The Housing Rights Initiative, a nonprofit that advocates for tenants, uncovered the alleged overcharge while investigating similar claims from tenants living at 89 Hicks Street in Brooklyn, which was also added to the Kushner portfolio and is the subject of another proposed class action suit bringing rent overcharge claims.
Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Edgar Walker allowed Kushner Cos. to be dismissed from the 18 Sidney case, but said the case may proceed against the entity associated with the building and its management company, Westminster Management.
“Time to flip over the rock and see what's crawling underneath,” said Housing Rights Initiative executive director Aaron Carr.
Newman Ferrara attorneys Lucas Ferrara, Jarred Kassenoff and Roger Sachar Jr. represent the tenants from both 18 Sidney and 89 Hicks.
Simcha Schonfeld of Koss & Schonfeld was defense counsel. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
While Kushner's White House role as an adviser to Trump puts the case is a national spotlight, Walker's three-page ruling in the 18 Sidney case dwelled on a local clash within the New York City landlord-tenant bar and in the city's courts over properly charging for rent-stabilized apartments.
To back up his argument for dismissal in the 18 Sidney suit, Schonfeld relied on a recent ruling by a state court judge in Manhattan that would have placed tougher scrutiny on plaintiffs who seek to bring class action suits over rent overcharges.
The November 2017 ruling by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Erika Edwards in Maddicks v. Big City Realty to grant a motion to dismiss the tenants' suit at the pleading stage because it did not meet the standards for class certification was the subject of dueling columns in the Law Journal between Ferrara, whose firm represents the tenants; and lawyers from Rosenberg & Estis, which represents the property owners in the 89 Hicks case.
On appeal, the class certification issue also brought justices from the Appellate Division, First Department, to loggerheads: in July, a five-judge panel voted 3-2 to reverse Edwards.
The case is heading to the state Court of Appeals.
After the First Department's ruling to flip Edwards, the defense in the 18 Sidney case tried to change up the strategy: According to Walker's ruling, the defense argued that the judge should stick with the lower court ruling in Maddicks and ignore the First Department, since Brooklyn falls under the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division, Second Department.
“It was the height of chutzpah,” Ferrara said of Schonfeld's pivot.
But Walker rejected that argument, finding that in the absence of Second Department precedence on the matter, he is bound to stick with the jurisprudence of the appellate court across the East River.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
4 minute readNY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Former Top Aide to NYC Mayor Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250