HSTPA Applies to Notice of Nonrenewal Predating Effective Date of the Law
In their Landlord-Tenant column, Warren Estis and Michael Feinstein discuss 'Zagorski v. Makarewicz,' where the court was faced with a question relating to the HSTPA's impact on owners' use proceedings; namely, where the owner served the notice of nonrenewal on the tenant before the effective date of the HSTPA, are the requirements of the HSTPA applicable to such a notice?
December 03, 2019 at 01:04 PM
5 minute read
As has previously been addressed in this publication, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), effective as of June 14, 2019, made significant changes to both the rent laws and the laws governing landlord-tenant proceedings in New York State. Among the many significant changes, Part I, §2, which amended Administrative Code of the City of New York ("Admin. Code") §26-511[c][9][b], provides that no rent stabilization code can be enacted unless it provides that no owner may refuse to renew a lease except: "where he or she seeks to recover possession of one dwelling unit because of immediate and compelling necessity for his or her own personal use and occupancy as his or her primary residence or for the use and occupancy of a member of his or her immediate family as his or her primary residence, provided, however, that this subparagraph shall permit recovery of only one dwelling unit."
In our last column, we addressed a decision from Civil Court, Kings County [Fried v. Galindo, NYLJ, 1564952675NY6633418 (Civ. Ct. Kings Co, July 31, 2019)] in which the court held that the HSTPA applied to an owner' use proceeding pending at the time of the new law's effective date, resulting in the dismissal of the proceeding in which the owner sought to recover more than one dwelling unit.
In this month's column, we write about another decision recently issued by the Civil Court, Kings County in Zagorski v. Makarewicz, 2019 WL 6109562 (Civ Ct Kings Co, Oct. 31, 2019) (Zagorski), in which the court (Judge Zhuo Wang) was faced with a different question relating to the HSTPA's impact on owners' use proceedings; namely, where the owner served the notice of nonrenewal on the tenant before the effective date of the HSTPA, are the requirements of the HSTPA applicable to such a notice? The court in Zagorski answered that question in the affirmative, resulting in the dismissal of the owner's proceeding.
Background
In Zagorski, the owner had delivered a notice of nonrenewal to the tenant seeking to recover multiple apartments in the building located at 183 Guernsey Street in Brooklyn for owner's personal use. The notice further stated that if all of the units could not be recovered, the owner "still intends to recover unit 4R, a fourth-floor apartment, to enlarge their current living space in unit 2R, on the second floor." The owner thereafter, in March 2019, commenced a holdover proceeding based upon the notice of nonrenewal, seeking in the petition to recover only apartment 4R for his personal use.
The tenant moved to dismiss the proceeding, arguing that the notice of nonrenewal was defective because it failed to show an "immediate and compelling necessity" to recover possession of the apartment for personal or family member's use, as now required by Admin. Code §26-511[c][9][b], as amended by the HSTPA. The owner, in opposition to the motion, maintained that the new requirements of the HSTPA should not be applied "ex post facto" because the "immediate and compelling necessity" requirement was not in existence at the time the notice of nonrenewal was served.
The owner further argued that "for this court to dismiss the proceeding because of the failure to meet a standard that did not exist at the time the predicate notice was served…would be 'unfair' and a 'flagrant breach of his constitutional rights.'" Alternatively, owner asked for an opportunity to meet the new standard imposed by the HSTPA by way of an attorney affirmation.
The court rejected the owner's contentions and dismissed the proceeding. It observed that "[p]ursuant to §5 of Part I, the amendment to §26-511(c)(9)(b) 'shall take effect immediately and shall apply to any tenant in possession at or after the time it takes effect.'" The court then went on to find that the owner had failed to demonstrate that the new requirement in the HSTPA that the owner allege "an immediate and compelling necessity" should not be applied in the case at bar. The court stated that with respect to the owner's contention that the application of the new law inflicted a "flagrant breach" of his constitutional rights, the owner had "failed to specify which rights have been violated, and he fails to cite any legal authority in support of his constitutional argument."
It further observed that in the recent decision issued by the Appellate Division, First Department in Dugan v. London Terrace Gardens, L.P., 177 AD3d 1 (1st Dept. 2019), the court held that another provision of the HSTPA "materially affecting pending claims withstood constitutional scrutiny because the Legislature's enactments carry an 'exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality.'"
As such, the court held that because "a predicate notice cannot be amended," the owner's "conceded failure to state an 'immediate and compelling necessity" in owner's notice of nonrenewal "is not reasonable under the attendant circumstances" and therefore required the dismissal of the petition for failure to state a cause of action.
Conclusion
The HSTPA has and will continue to present the courts with a myriad of issues concerning its impact on the rent laws and landlord-tenant relations in the state of New York. As we stated in our prior column, as new decisions are issued, we will continue to try in this column to keep the landlord-tenant bar apprised of significant developments in the interpretation of this historic new body of law.
Warren A. Estis is a founding member at Rosenberg & Estis. Michael E. Feinstein is a member at the firm.
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 AllMall of America Dealt Another Blow in Quest to End $10-Per-Year Lease With Sears
3 minute readBinding a Successor Town Board; Default on Stipulation of Settlement: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Top Real Estate Broker Brothers Facing Federal Sex Crimes Charges
Trending Stories
- 1Authenticating Electronic Signatures
- 2'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
- 3Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 4A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 5Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
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