Shock waves rippled through the New York City apartment rental industry in October 2009 when the Court of Appeals held, in Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties,1 that units in buildings receiving “J-51 benefits” may not be removed from rent regulation, even if deregulation would otherwise be permissible (the Roberts rule). The court’s view that its holding was dictated by the clear language of the Rent Stabilization Law to the contrary, the Roberts rule was a clear departure from DHCR’s unchallenged interpretation, upon which over a decade of industry practice had been based.
Dismissing predictions of dire ramifications for the industry, the court counseled that the scope and application of the Roberts rule depended on the resolution of “issues yet to be decided, including retroactivity, class certification, the statute of limitations, and other defenses that may be applicable to particular tenants.”2 The First Department has thus far ruled on the retroactivity of the Roberts rule, the application of the statute of limitations on claims brought in its aftermath, and the collateral estoppel effect of administrative orders and stipulations preceding Roberts. This article reviews the state of the law on these three issues.
Retroactive Effect
This content has been archived.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]
