The document summarizes 6 notable landlord-tenant cases from 2016, including cases where a tenant was found to still be rent-stabilized due to not receiving proper notice of J-51 tax benefits expiring, a landlord being required to refund over $800,000 to a tenant for rent overcharges, and a landlord being allowed to evict a tenant for conducting short-term rentals of their apartment through Airbnb.

1. 2016:
Top 5 Cases
From
1 vendomerealestatemedia.com
Presents...
APARTMENT LAW INSIDER TOTAL DECISION SERVICE FOR LANDLORDS, MANAGERS, AND ATTORNEYS
NEW YORK
Tenant Didn’t Receive Proper J-51 Lease Rider............................2
Landlord Must Refund Over $800,000 to Tenant............................3
Accessibility Ramps Qualify as Major Capital Improvements.............4
Co-op Shareholder Tenant Gets 100 Percent
Rent Abatement for Smoke Infiltration......................................5
Landlord Can Evict Tenant Who Conducted
Short-Term Rentals Through Airbnb..........................................6

2. Landlord v. Tenant Top Cases
Tenant Didn’t Receive Proper
J-51 Lease Rider
Landlord asked the DHCR to rule on whether its building was exempt from
rent stabilization. Landlord claimed that the building was substantially
rehabilitated between 1989 and 1990, and received J-51 tax benefits.
Landlord claimed that when the J-51 benefits expired, tenant became
deregulated since tenant had received a J-51 lease rider advising him
that J-51 and rent stabilization status would expire. The DRA ruled
against landlord, who appealed and lost. Tenant wasn’t properly advised
of the building’s J-51 status. Tenant’s initial 1999 lease included a Rent
Stabilization Rider, and a J-51 Rider that wasn’t initialed or signed by tenant
or landlord. Tenant remained rent stabilized.
Don tom Realty: DHCR Adm.
Rev. Docket No. EP210006RP (6/17/16)
2 vendomerealestatemedia.com

3. 3 vendomerealestatemedia.com
Assisted Housing Management Insider Top StoriesCommercial Lease Law Insider Top StoriesLandlord v. Tenant Top Cases
Altschuler v. Jobman 478/480 LLC: 2016 NY Slip Op 00035,
2016 WL 71898 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 1/7/16; Acosta, JP,
Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, JJ)
Landlord Must Refund Over
$800,000 to Tenant
Tenant sued landlord for rent overcharge. The court ruled for tenant
and ordered landlord to refund over $875,000, including triple damages.
Landlord appealed and lost. The appeals court found that: (1) landlord
improperly deregulated the apartment while it was receiving J-51 tax
benefits and that tenant was entitled to rent-stabilized status for the
duration of his tenancy and to collect any rent overcharge; (2) landlord
didn’t provide sufficient information to validate monthly rent increases;
and (3) landlord’s collection of unlawful rent overcharges before filing late
rent registrations warranted imposing a rent freeze on the apartment.
Because tenant showed a colorable claim of fraud, the lower court
properly disregarded the rent charged four years prior to the filing of the
rent overcharge claim, and properly examined the entire rent history to
determine the legality of the base rent. The application of the DHCR’s
default formula also was warranted given the unreliability of the rental
history since 1995 given landlord’s failure to file a number of
annual rent registrations.

4. 4 vendomerealestatemedia.com
Assisted Housing Management Insider Top StoriesCommercial Lease Law Insider Top StoriesLandlord v. Tenant Top Cases
Bradley Apts. Co., LLC: DHCR Adm.
Rev. Docket No. DO210007RP (6/7/16)
Accessibility Ramps Qualify as
Major Capital Improvements
The DRA granted landlord’s MCI rent increase application for installation
of doors, locks, and cylinders, but denied any increase for temporary
relocation and reinstallation of mailboxes and accessibility ramp/concrete
work installation with all the related work. The DRA noted that landlord
failed to provide a list of disabled tenants in the building. Landlord
appealed, and the DHCR denied its PAR. Landlord then filed an Article 78
court appeal. The court sent the case back to DHCR for reconsideration.
The DHCR then ruled for landlord in part. Landlord again argued that it was
forbidden by the fair housing laws to request disability information from
tenants, and that the accessibility ramp benefitted all tenants.
The DHCR agreed. Previously, the DHCR’s policy was that rent increases for
accessibility ramps would be granted only where a disabled tenant made a
complaint to landlord or a governmental agency that deals with accessibility
issues. But making rent increases for what can be a major installation solely
contingent upon tenant complaint was burdensome on both landlords and
tenants. Also ramps have become a standard of modern multiple dwelling
construction and building rehabilitation. Accessibility ramps also are helpful
to a wide range of tenants and visitors, including people wheeling baby
strollers or luggage, elderly people with difficulty walking, and people with
temporary injuries. Accessibility ramps, both interior and exterior, are now
eligible for MCI rent increases.

5. Assisted Housing Management Insider Top Stories Compendium
5 vendomerealestatemedia.com
Assisted Housing Management Insider Top StoriesCommercial Lease Law Insider Top StoriesLandlord v. Tenant Top Cases
Co-op Shareholder Tenant Gets 100 Percent
Rent Abatement for Smoke Infiltration
Co-op shareholder tenant sued co-op corporation for failing to remedy a
secondhand smoke condition in her apartment. She claimed that the smoke
caused her to suffer tightness in her chest, coughing, headaches, and watery
eyes. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case, but the court refused
and found that there were questions of fact requiring a trial. The trial court
later ruled for tenant. Tenant and other witnesses credibly testified that
significant cigarette smoke permeated and polluted tenant’s apartment,
and tenant’s apartment renovations didn’t cause the smoke infiltration.
The shareholder of a co-op apartment that couldn’t be safely inhabited was
entitled to a 100 percent rent abatement, which the court awarded tenant
retroactive to June 2007. Landlord pointed out that tenant didn’t occupy
the apartment during that time, but the court found that this didn’t matter.
Reinhard v. Connaught Tower Corp.: Index No.
602503/2008, NYLJ No. 102751009993
(Sup. Ct. NY; 1/25/16; Engoron, J)

6. Assisted Housing Management Insider Top Stories Compendium
6 vendomerealestatemedia.com
Assisted Housing Management Insider Top StoriesAssisted Housing Management Insider Top StoriesCommercial Lease Law Insider Top StoriesLandlord v. Tenant Top Cases
Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for unlawful subletting of her
apartment and profiteering. The court ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed
and lost. At trial, landlord showed that tenant: (1) listed the apartment
on the Airbnb website at a nightly rate starting at $215 plus other charges;
(2) provided linens, towels, WiFi, TV, and housekeeping service; (3) had
rented the apartment at least 120 nights in a 14-month period, with groups
as large as seven adults staying up to 10 days and paying $375 per night;
and (4) had reported Airbnb rental income on tax returns for 2009 and 2010
while deducting apartment expenses against that income. The trial court
properly found that tenant’s conduct constituted subletting, profiteering,
and commercialization of the premises. This was an incurable violation of
the Rent Stabilization Law.
335-7 LLC v. Steele: 53 Misc.3d 150(A),
2016 NY Slip Op 51689(U) (App. T. 1
Dept.; 11/29/16; Schoenfeld, JP, Shulman, Gonzalez, JJ)
Landlord Can Evict Tenant Who Conducted
Short-Term Rentals Through Airbnb

7. 7 vendomerealestatemedia.com
Assisted Housing Management Insider Top StoriesCommercial Lease Law Insider Top StoriesLandlord v. Tenant Top Cases