APPELLATE DIVISION RULES MET LIFE LIABLE FOR PAST RENT OVERCHARGES IN THE ROBERTS CASE In a long awaited ruling, the Appellate Division, First Department issued a unanimous, per curiam decision (not authored by an individual Justice on the five member panel) on Thursday, November 3, affirming Justice Richard B. Lowe's August 5, 2010 order denying MetLife's application to dismiss the action against... [more]
APPELLATE DIVISION RULES MET LIFE LIABLE FOR PAST RENT OVERCHARGES IN THE ROBERTS CASE
In a long awaited ruling, the Appellate Division, First Department issued a unanimous, per curiam decision (not authored by an individual Justice on the five member panel) on Thursday, November 3, affirming Justice Richard B. Lowe's August 5, 2010 order denying MetLife's application to dismiss the action against it in the J51 Roberts case.
The Court held that Justice Lowe properly gave retroactive effect to the Roberts opinion of the Court of Appeals. That decision, the Appellate Division ruled, was neither unexpected and indefensible to existing law nor was it an arbitrary change in the law, as Met argued. Accordingly, the decision is to be given full retroactive effect, subjecting Met to damages for rent overcharges during the relevant years of its ownership of the property.
What this means for the 4,000 former Market Rate Tenants in Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper is that Met will be held liable for rent overcharges retroactive from 2009 for a period of at least four years, or possibly longer. The exact period is not presently known.
In view of this ruling, all previously market rate tenants under both Tishman Speyer and MetLife will be entitled to damages for rent overcharges.
[less]
Response by rb345
about 14 years ago
Posts: 1273
Member since: Jun 2009
1. the statute of limitation governing rent overcharge claims is four years
2. in this case that will be four years back from the date Met Life was sued
3. an even bigger issue, perhaps ruled on, is whether it is liable for triple damages
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by cccharley
about 14 years ago
Posts: 903
Member since: Sep 2008
The lawsuit was filed Jan 2007 so that brings it back to 2003. I got my apt history and it was deregulated in 2003 from under $1600 to over $2000. I'm sure this will go on for years coming up with the correct formula. I only moved in in 2010 so I won't get anything unless they raised me too much this year. They stopped honoring the interim agreement.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by rb345
about 14 years ago
Posts: 1273
Member since: Jun 2009
ccc:
1. rent overcharge has been the subject of numerous recent appellate court rulings
2. mostly issued by the appeals court for Manhattan, and the state's highest court
3. those decisions concern how and from what date to calculate bases and triple damages
4. I;ve read many of them
5. it would be easier to decipher heiroglyphics written on a cave wall 35,000 - 40,000 years ago
6. than to make sense of those decisions
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by cccharley
about 14 years ago
Posts: 903
Member since: Sep 2008
Biggest problem is the apartment churning. How do you prove that all those tenants left because the rent was raised too high because it was destabilized in the first place? I know my apt was churned quite a few times which "legally" would allow them to raise it a huge amount every time. They told me my legal rent was over $4500 because it flipped so many times while my friends 2 br is less because it rarely flipped. It's a big fat mess.
1. the statute of limitation governing rent overcharge claims is four years
2. in this case that will be four years back from the date Met Life was sued
3. an even bigger issue, perhaps ruled on, is whether it is liable for triple damages
The lawsuit was filed Jan 2007 so that brings it back to 2003. I got my apt history and it was deregulated in 2003 from under $1600 to over $2000. I'm sure this will go on for years coming up with the correct formula. I only moved in in 2010 so I won't get anything unless they raised me too much this year. They stopped honoring the interim agreement.
ccc:
1. rent overcharge has been the subject of numerous recent appellate court rulings
2. mostly issued by the appeals court for Manhattan, and the state's highest court
3. those decisions concern how and from what date to calculate bases and triple damages
4. I;ve read many of them
5. it would be easier to decipher heiroglyphics written on a cave wall 35,000 - 40,000 years ago
6. than to make sense of those decisions
Biggest problem is the apartment churning. How do you prove that all those tenants left because the rent was raised too high because it was destabilized in the first place? I know my apt was churned quite a few times which "legally" would allow them to raise it a huge amount every time. They told me my legal rent was over $4500 because it flipped so many times while my friends 2 br is less because it rarely flipped. It's a big fat mess.