The parties in Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, may have settled,1 but thanks to the Court of Appeals’ landmark 2009 decision in the case, reversing nearly two decades of uniform practice in the New York City apartment rental industry,2 Roberts leaves a legacy of active litigation and precedent-making jurisprudence. Just as the court predicted, its holding in Roberts spawned a host of “issues yet to be decided,” that the lower and intermediate appellate courts have been grappling with for three years now.
In our Aug. 29, 2012 Law Journal column, we reviewed the First Department’s treatment of three such issues: the retroactivity of the Roberts rule, the statute of limitations for bringing claims for rent overcharges based on the rule’s application and the collateral estoppel effect of prior administrative orders and stipulations on post-Roberts claims. In this column, we address three more issues recently resolved by the First Department: the calculation of overcharges based on a “Roberts” violation, treble damages and the question of whether any unit in a building caught in the Roberts snare can ever be eligible for high-rent/high-income (“luxury”) deregulation.
Calculations
This content has been archived.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]
