Court of Appeals Set to Review Alleged Class Action Rent Control Violations Against Building Owners
The court's seven judges will review whether the Appellate Division, First Department erred when it reinstated many of the tenants' claims after they were initially dismissed by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Erika Edwards.
September 03, 2019 at 02:14 PM
6 minute read
New York state's highest court is set to hear arguments Wednesday on whether the tenants of nearly a dozen apartment buildings in New York City may pursue a class action lawsuit against their landlords over alleged violations of the state's rent control laws.
The New York Court of Appeals scheduled the case as its first to consider since June, when it began its summer break.
The court's seven judges will review whether the Appellate Division, First Department erred when it reinstated many of the tenants' claims after they were initially dismissed by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Erika Edwards.
The lawsuit was brought three years ago by a group of tenants who alleged their landlords overcharged them rent during times when their buildings should have received tax incentives tied to the J-51 program, immediately after their units were removed from rent control, and following individual apartment improvements, or IAIs.
The tenants are being represented before the Court of Appeals by Roger Sachar, an associate with Newman Ferrara in Manhattan.
The litigation included claims from the tenants of 24 apartments, spread between 11 different buildings in New York City. Each of those buildings, according to court filings, are owned, through separate companies, by the defendant, Big City Properties, LLC.
Big City is being represented before the Court of Appeals by Simcha Schonfeld of Koss & Schonfeld in Manhattan.
Schonfeld is expected to make the company's case for reversing the Appellate Division's decision to reinstate many of the tenants' claims, which could evolve into class action litigation in the future. The lawsuit was thrown out at the trial court, which ruled that each of the tenants' claims were too particular to result in class certification.
"Based on the facts of this case, the court determines that this suit fails as a class action because the questions of law or fact common to the class do not predominate over questions affecting only individual members," Edwards wrote for the trial court.
She also wrote that the claims or defenses may not be typical of the class, and that a class action would not be superior to other available methods of adjudication for each tenant. In other words, the tenants' claims were too disparate to proceed as a class.
Edwards wasn't ruling on a motion to certify the class, which is required for litigation to move forward as a class action lawsuit. She was, instead, determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss from Big City Properties. She did so, in its entirety.
The First Department, in a split decision, modified that order and reinstated most of the claims and class action allegations. The panel wrote in its majority opinion that the decision from Edwards to shoot down the tenants' class action claims was made too early in the litigation, and without considering what information could be gleaned from discovery.
"The dismissal, at this early stage, before an answer was filed and before any discovery occurred, was premature," the First Department wrote.
That decision was handed down with three judges on the majority opinion, and two in the dissent, which grants civil cases an automatic opportunity to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The coalition of tenants, in their brief to the Court of Appeals, argued that a decision to throw out class claims at such an early stage in litigation, particularly before a motion for class certification has been considered, would be contrary to what the state's appellate courts have previously held in similar situations.
"Dismissing class claims at such a preliminary stage would be highly unusual, and has never been countenanced by this Court," the tenants' brief said. "The First and Second Departments have uniformly held that a determination of whether the class action prerequisites have been satisfied, prior to class certification, is inappropriate."
They also argued that state law would allow their class to be split into different so-called subclasses, where differences exist among the plaintiffs. One subclass, for example, could be for members who alleged they were overcharged rent based on false claims of IAIs.
Attorneys for Big City wrote in their brief that the claims alleged by the tenants are not common to the proposed class. The actions alleged by each tenant happened at different times, in different units, which were owned by different landlords, they wrote. Each will require its own, separate analysis, which they argued would exempt the tenants from forming a class.
"That is, there is nothing that is true of one putative class member that would necessarily be true for another," Big City's attorneys wrote.
They pointed to one of the dissenting justices from the First Department, who wrote that allegations of rent overcharges were specific to each unit and could not be collectively analyzed for the group of tenants.
"To be clear, the point I am making is not that the common questions will not predominate; it is that questions common to the class, predominant or otherwise, simply do not exist," wrote First Department Associate Justice David Friedman.
The Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments on the case Wednesday afternoon. It's the first case scheduled for the court's session, which is set for 2 p.m. in Albany.
READ MORE:
Cuomo Signs Bill Reinstating 6-year Statute of Limitations Under Martin Act
A Call for Scholarship, Civic Engagement & Amicus Curiae Before the NYCOA
NY's Transition to Uniform Bar Exam Had Little Impact on Test Performance, Report Finds
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
© 2025 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 AllRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
'Playing the Clock'?: Hochul Says NY's Discovery Loophole Is to Blame for Wide Dismissal of Criminal Cases
So Who Won? Congestion Pricing Ruling Leaves Both Sides Claiming Victory, Attorneys Seeking Clarification
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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