Gunther v. 29th St. PVP, LLC

Gunther, 2025 NY Slip Op 02912 (Appellate Division Second Judicial Department 2025) · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · May 14, 2025 · No. 2024-00750

Summary

This Appellate Division decision affirms the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability in a rent stabilization and common-law fraud action against a landlord. The court held that although recent legislative amendments regarding fraudulent deregulation schemes apply retroactively, the tenants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact or establish a prima facie case that the defendant knowingly engaged in such a scheme. Consequently, the lower court's order was affirmed with costs.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.; PAUL WOOTEN; JANICE A. TAYLOR; PHILLIP HOM, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
May 14, 2025
Docket number
2024-00750
Procedural posture
Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Queens County denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Peter Gunther, et al. v. 29th Street PVP, LLC
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

rent controlreal estatestatutory interpretationappellate jurisdictionstandard of review

Practice areas

real estatetorts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability for common‑law fraud and rent overcharges.
  2. Whether the 2023 amendments to the Rent Stabilization Law have retroactive effect.

Holdings

  1. The appellate division affirmed the order denying summary judgment, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud and therefore the motion was properly denied.
  2. The amendments have retroactive effect, but the retroactivity does not overcome the plaintiffs' failure to establish a prima facie fraudulent scheme.

Key quotations

In determining whether statutory enactments should be given retroactive effect, there are two axioms of statutory interpretation. Amendments are presumed to have prospective application unless the Legislature's preference for retroactivity is explicitly stated or clearly indicated. However, remedial legislation should be given retroactive effect in order to effectuate its beneficial purpose.

Factual background

The plaintiffs, tenants in two Astoria apartment buildings, claimed the landlord failed to register the apartments as rent‑stabilized until October 2018 despite participation in the J‑51 tax benefit program, and that this failure was part of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the units, resulting in rent overcharges.

Procedural history

Plaintiffs, tenants in two Astoria buildings, sued the landlord for common‑law fraud and rent overcharges, alleging failure to register apartments as rent‑stabilized. The Supreme Court, Queens County denied their motion for summary judgment on liability. The appellants appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…