Pre- and Post-HSTPA Analysis of Rent Overcharge Claims
The cases and language of 'Regina' make it rather clear that where an overcharge complaint was filed prior to the HSTPA, a court should only apply a pre-HSTPA analysis.
March 05, 2021 at 02:20 PM
10 minute read
On June 14, 2019, in one of the most recent ground breaking pieces of legislation, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) was passed into law, which significantly altered, to tenants' benefit, many aspects of long standing decisional and statutory law.
Prior to the HSTPA, rental overcharge claims were generally limited to a four-year look back period for purposes of both determining the existence of an overcharge claim and the legal regulated rent. With the passing of the HSTPA, and specifically the changes introduced in Part F of the legislation, there was now, among many other changes, a six-year statute of limitations on calculation of overcharge claims with no imitation on the look back period to determine the legal rent. Rather, the courts were now required to consider all available rent history which was reasonably necessary to investigate overcharge claims and determine legal regulate rents. The HSTPA applied to all pending claims and thus courts began immediately applying the HSTPA retroactively to all cases.
This content has been archived.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 AllDisbarred NY Atty Receives 54-Month Prison Sentence After $3M Embezzlement
3 minute readUnit Owners Sued Board for Failure To Maintain Adequate Fire Insurance: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Trending Stories
- 1U.S.- China Trade War: Lawyers and Clients Left 'Relying on the Governments to Sort This Out'
- 2Willkie Adds Five-Lawyer Team From Quinn Emanuel in Germany
- 3AI Discrimination and the 10-Step Bias Elimination Audit
- 4Return to Work Mandates Among Current Mental Health Stressors for Legal Professionals
- 5Friday Newspaper
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