As the attorney (together with my partner, Ally Hack) for the tenant in RAM I vs. DHCR, which was discussed in the article titled “‘RAM I v. DHCR’: Much Ado About Nothing?“(NYLJ, Nov. 5), I write in response to the authors’ analysis of that decision.
I wholeheartedly agree that the effect of RAM I is limited. The number of rent-controlled apartments in New York City, to which the RAM I decision would apply, is rapidly diminishing. Of these apartments, there are only a limited number which have rents over the deregulation rent threshold of $2,500, and, of that, a smaller number which are occupied by tenants whose incomes exceed the deregulation income threshold of $200,000. However, with all due respect to my esteemed brethren, I disagree that the holding of RAM I is “much ado about nothing.”
This content has been archived.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]
