Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of a landlord's motion for summary judgment seeking ejectment and declaratory judgment regarding apartment deregulation. The court found the landlord failed to establish a prima facie case that the rent exceeded the high rent vacancy deregulation threshold or satisfied Rent Stabilization Law compliance requirements. The decision also upheld the denial of dismissal for the tenant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims for rent overcharges, retaliation, and harassment, noting they were adequately pleaded under applicable statutes and recent legislative amendments.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment on the landlord's ejectment and deregulation claims should be denied.
- Whether the landlord's motion to dismiss the tenant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims should be denied.
- Whether the tenant's counterclaims for rent overcharges, retaliation, and harassment are viable.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was properly denied because the landlord failed to establish a prima facie case that the rent exceeded the deregulation threshold and because the tenant had not answered the ejectment complaint.
- The motion to dismiss was denied because the landlord could not establish that the apartment was deregulated, leaving the affirmative defenses and counterclaims intact.
- The tenant's counterclaim for rent overcharges was sustained; the retaliation and harassment counterclaims were found viable and may support an award of attorney's fees.
Key quotations
“Supreme Court properly denied the landlord's motion for summary judgment on its cause of action seeking a declaration that the apartment was deregulated in 2010.” (*1)
“The tenant's second counterclaim for rent overcharges was properly sustained.” (*2)
Factual background
The landlord alleged that the apartment was deregulated in 2010 because the rent allegedly exceeded the high‑rent vacancy threshold. The DHCR rent history showed the rent never surpassed the $2,000 threshold, and the landlord submitted only the tenant's 2020 renewal lease. The tenant had not answered the ejectment complaint, and the landlord failed to show the apartment was deregulated.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, New York County denied the landlord's summary‑judgment motion on its ejectment and deregulation claims and denied its motion to dismiss the tenant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The landlord appealed those denials to the Appellate Division, First Department.