July Insights
By Eileen O’Toole, Esq., Contributing Editor
Variations on recurring themes involving, for example, the retroactivity of Rent Stabilization Law amendments enacted by the HSTPA, as well as application of the CEEFPA provisions, played out in recent cases before the courts and DHCR.
In Karpen v. Castro [LVT #31513], a Brooklyn Housing Court revisited its prior dismissal of an owner occupancy claim for four apartments that was pending when HSTPA amendments to the RSL restricted such recovery to one apartment upon a showing of compelling necessity. The landlord pointed out that, subsequent to the Karpen decision, the Appellate Division, First Dept. had ruled in Harris v. Israel [LVT #31281] that such retroactive application of owner occupancy rules was too harsh on the landlord. But the Karpen Court affirmed its prior decision, noting that the Harris case involved a proceeding that had already been decided by the lower court in the landlord’s favor. In Karpen, no lower court determination had yet been made at the time that HSTPA took effect.
Courts are still addressing applicability issues under the CEEFPA as the eviction moratorium currently remains extended through Aug. 31, 2021. In Greene Organization LLC v. Jones [LVT #31512], another of several recent cases on this question, a Brooklyn court ruled that the CEEFPA applied in an ejectment action.
In several eviction proceedings, the courts considered Hardship Declarations filed by former building supers or their family members and, despite the fact that the supers were not tenants, stayed these proceedings while the moratorium remained in place. See Tzifil Realty v. Mazrekaj [LVT #31510]; Morrison Mgt. LLC v. Moreno [LVT #31515]; Stuyvesant Manor, Inc. v. Zayas [LVT #31516].
Several courts also appear to have applied heightened scrutiny to tenant harassment claims raised in HP proceedings involving disruption of building services during the COVID-19 pandemic period, and assessed penalties including payments to tenants and punitive damages. See Contreras v. Lin [LVT #31504]; Hibbert v. Powell [LVT #31506].
COVID concerns also became a deciding factor in an illegal lockout case brought by a roommate against an apartment tenant. See Wisdom v. Byfield [LVT #31511]. Ultimately, the court found the tenant’s concerns of living with the roommate in light of the ongoing pandemic took precedence over other points of law. The proceeding was dismissed.
Finally, an appeals court upheld the conviction of a landlord and his general contractor for manslaughter, assault, and reckless endangerment, after their unauthorized gas line rigging between two apartment buildings resulted in the 2015 explosion that killed two people and injured 13 others. See People v. Kukic [LVT #31507].