560-568 Audubon Tenants Assn v 560-568 Audubon Realty, LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
560-568 Audubon Tenants Assn v 560-568 Audubon Realty, LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33589(U) September 13, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 154661/16 Judge: Barbara Jaffe Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2019 05:17 PM INDEX NO. 154661/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127 NO. 173 NYSCEF DOC. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/14/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE NEW YORK PRESENT: BARBARA HON. NEW YORK OF STATE COUNTY JAFFE PART 12 Justice ---------------------- -----------------------X AUDUBON 560-568 TENANTS et ASSOCIATION, INDEX NO. 154661/16 al., Plaintiffs, - V - AUDUBON 560-568 REALTY, MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. 3 NO. AND DECISION et al., LLC, __ ORDER . Defendants. ---- notice By the dismissing of overcharge claims complaint. Plaintiffs As motion to dismiss Shelley superseded regulation, resolution [1st LLC, court supreme given first Dept 2017], plaintiffs' 96 its has AD3d 440, expertise and related in the second ability for (7) an order Housing plaintiffs' to and rent amended Misc 2d that issues expertise e.g., NY3d denial to interpose in this in these matters, [court [2018] on over rent to investigate overcharge case, are allegations 1 of 3 Page 1 of3 of fraud [as 1999] to rent suited particularly are best 1000 determine AD3d discretion v Stellar Olsen [2013] be decided to addressed 155 LLC, exercised DHCR]; initial amended to dismiss]). Assets should and entertaining relating claims 24 sufficiency to dismiss motion issues providently matter from County Property v Cooper, motion second proceeding plaintiffs' v Netherland Collazo 910 DHCR with raised prohibition complaint, of Westchester Ct, [Sup jurisdiction the (See 275 e.g., precluded not notwithstanding permitted concurrent has academic; is no Thompson amended by court there it, (See overcharge should claims be determined by [1st lv 20 NY3d 441-2 Dept dismissed 2012], has jurisdiction of issues before complaint. superseded complaint lv granted31 rent the stated complaint complaint defendant instance. the rendered 180 fact which DHCR, in the original amended of the Division . a subsequent complaints court and 3211(a)(2) State over insufficiently supersedes original, that ruling 110, this by DHCR [as 2005] light York jurisdiction are claims New . v Shelley, complaint 538 other to CPLR pursuant the that primary as against second complaint]; in has complaint in earlier While move grounds oppose. an amêñded allegations by that and moving [1st 203 Dept AD3d the (DHCR) to dismiss against of on Renewal Community defendants motion, complaint X [although by apartment's DHCR, in W (FILED : NEW YORK YORK COUNTY [*FILED: 2] COUNTY CLERK NEW CLERK 06/19/2019 05:17 09/14/2018 10 : 49 PM ANQ NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. INDEX NO. 154661/2016 INDEX NO. 154661/2016 NO. 173 127 NO. 09/14/2018 status regulatory 873 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: [2d Dept and 2012] damages warranted doctrine; "while the should Assocs. v Nelligan, motion for before ; but DHCR] these see properly to DHCR, [1" first Dept on v B-U retained jurisdiction the matter legal of and directing over AD3d remain the rent open, resort rent ; 390 overcharges v 730 York and , 201 NY and fees, claim [1" Dept Op 06054 Slip issues rather the willfulness of LLC, tenant's appropriate bring other Drive. [denying attorney to has W. End and Riverside County] tenant which to a judicial overcharge including jurisdiction agency proceeding"] for overcharge Corp., Realty issues rent for New Ct, treble to primary discretion, ; Davidson [Sup claim of AD3d 100 Inc., whether is an administrative exercise DHCR] by Assoc., and pursuant the administrative [tenants' claim 2006] prejudice, Kreisler that the Op 31714[U] Slip it without given in instance judgment summary dismissing ["court 2018] NY exists, there Apt. willful, DHCR by where resolution 306 in 2015 partial determined of an issue, pending be resolved claim, severing to dispose whether overcharge, jurisdiction 35 AD3d 5171072, of v Pinewood ; Wilcox amounts] amount appropriately be withheld should WL 2015 more expertise tribunal rental of concurrent necessary damages applicable [issues than referring defendants' rent overcharges"). Deferring is essential [which] that the that their trial court routinely Capital Tel. should ineffective the matter before the court the in reaching over the by discovery and with is within but AD2d 11, 22 also that both the agency's the scope held judgment regulation issues are It quoted [2000]). the are of from views of meaning between and not the that available to factual the only statute them extent to the to make field, concerning between relationship opinion concerned, specialized and 2d, (1982): divergence agency's ruling Court a declaratory 318 318, Jur the Inc., rent to co-ordinate end which the that NY (2 Co., seeking observing (274 is intended statutes court tenants by 56 NY2d to the Hous. of uniformity administered and by the rent and no of the matter; which during depositions in the of of and on can for ground investigate . . . determine was parties are for fraud rent base 2 Pwe of by had rent also document exchanging regulation status (See in has jurisdiction proper and over determine v Lem rent 96 Olsen, jurisdiction Friscia and process DHCR fraud. allegations, ; see raised be 126). a landlord. primary fraud rent"] 3 2 of3 law of been or will are they midst stabilization committed that DHCR plaintiffs' the in the common a tenant's fraud in the that (NYSCEF allege claim and have should argument pending, conducted. they is no "DHCR apartment, action, damages the been There award case that determination complaint jurisdictional this have cause registrations. may defendants' that it is undisputed first [dismissing overcharge assert delay, that expertise registrations . years two plaintiffs' defendants' status of Co., agencies involved plaintiffs prejudiced and expertise. its judgment 318). 318, While In issues stabilization, jurisdiction the the regulatory v Waterside promote "a statute." agency. AD2d 441-442 of primary render to rent area Tel. administrative not technical over subject also the a complaint dismissed DHCR's would of in Davis Thus, v Pattersonville and discretion purposes the [2018]). were doctrine courts with have within Co. The earlier § 328 apartments matters (274 to comply Law Administrative to DHCR's AD3d rent the Lee regulatory 13* Ltd at [*[FILED 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2019 05:17 PM NEW YORK CLERK : COUNTY 09/1T72018 10 : 4 9 AMI INDEX NO. 154661/2016 Ilm 15 1 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 173 NYSCEF 127 DOC. NO. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/14/2018 on DHCR's tenants on as common DHCR's appeal related to alleged Assets for law fraud, may not AD3d relief [private 2010] regulation complaint York County issues], raised dismissal 37 AD3d not susceptible as issues complaint [dismissing [1st 168 Dept 2007] 2006] affd issues affirmed Kimpson, 5188712, *3 [ED resulting WL dismissal 53 Mich [D of resolution entailed daiiiaged Rhode by Accordingly, ORDERED, to defeiidaiits as taxed and USC factual 2015], based [while DHCR, by determinations within Island citing federal allegation no exposure or by Investments, complaint USC plaintiff or any to disclose risks that (See G.M.M Inc., 2008 for member of lead of to Realty, subject § 4852d v WL failure v Warwick Christian failed to [1st 422 Dept § 349]). pleaded. 4852d to 42 pursuant failure by GBL v Acme statute]; AD3d 69 LLC, is insufficiently section [claim 2014] Props., Property [tenants [2018] § 349 (GBL) v Netherland 910 covered to Kaye Law Business Co!!azo 31 NY3d not plaintiff's of General (See tenants § 4852d violation ceiitaliled lead to the v Vantage ; Aguaiza [dismissing technical as complaint been to 42 NY [ED 2008] from 2434626 § 349] landlords pursuant 3d pursuant of the rent regulation laws. [1st Dept lv granted 2017], between claim F Supp a claim GBL under 92 damages maintain 538 disputes Plaintiffs' had that violations 155 LLC, claim 2014 rent New Ct, [Sup over expertise]). Plaintiffs state 4937209 jurisdiction argued such WL 2006 Partnership, show LLC, to plaintiff's family poisoning]). it is hereby that by the the complaint Clerk is dismissed upon the in its submission entirety, of with costs an appropriate and bill of disbursements and costs; it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 9/13/18 BARBARA DATE JAFFE, J.S . IION.BARBARA CHECK ONE: NON-FINAL DISPOSITION CASE DISPOSED DENIED GRANTED GRANTED IN PART APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: DO NOT POST FIDUCIARY APPOiiiTiviENT Page 3 3 of of 3 3 OTHER REFERENCE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
