It has been widely observed that the Court of Appeals’ ruling in Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., 13 N.Y.3d 270, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388 (2009), raised more questions than it answered. Even the majority in Roberts acknowledged this, noting that the full effect of its decision depended “on issues yet to be decided, including retroactivity, class certification, the statute of limitations, and other defenses that may be applicable to particular tenants.”1 The majority added that “if the statute imposes unacceptable burdens, defendants’ remedy is to seek legislative relief.”2 Although the Legislature amended and extended the Rent Stabilization Law pursuant to L. 2011, ch. 97, effective June 24, 2011, the Legislature did not address any of the issues that Roberts had raised.
In its Aug. 18, 2011 decision in Gersten v. 56 7th Ave LLC, 2011 WL 3611920, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06300 (A.D. 1st Dept.), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed some of the issues that Roberts left unresolved, including retroactivity, statute of limitations, and the effect of final and binding Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) orders of deregulation that were issued pre-Roberts.
‘Gersten’
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
