Alan D. Kucker Writes “Should Rent Regulation Be Abolished?”

Co-authored by William D. Hummell, Esq., published for VIII International Congress of Arbitrators, Madrid, Spain, October 1987.

On February 1, 2007, in Friscia v Lem Lee 13th Limited Partnership, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1046 (1st Dep’t 2007), Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP won a significant victory for a residential landlord, by establishing that the DHCR has primary jurisdiction over rent overcharge complaints and a stabilized tenant cannot circumvent the agency’s jurisdiction by commencing a court proceeding. The tenant had attempted to avoid the 4-year statute of limitations on rent overcharge complaints filed with the DHCR, by commencing a court action for an order “declaring” that he was paying a rent overcharge based on evidence going back beyond four years. Clearly hoping the Court would apply less stringent rules than those applied by the DHCR, the tenant argued that the Court should determine his overcharge complaint. Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens moved to dismiss the action, and the motion was successful. The Appellate Division affirmed. This decision is extremely important to owners of rent stabilized and rent controlled apartments as it requires that a tenant claiming a rent overcharge must first file a complaint with the DHCR. It has been our experience that tenants’ attorneys have been advising tenants to commence court proceedings, instead of filing overcharge complaints with the DHCR, hoping that individual judges will not follow established DHCR rules and precedent, especially with respect to the 4-year statute of limitations. This precedent may convince other judges before whom a rent overcharge complaint is raised to dismiss those claims as well.

On December 13, 2006, in Herma Stribula v. 210 E.86th St. Corp. (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Co. Index No. 118478/06 ), the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, rendered a significant decision which protected a property owner from a trespass on his land that imperiled the value of his residential apartment building, and exposed the owner to potential future lawsuits by tenants and passersby seeking catastrophic damages; based on the legal papers prepared by Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP, which were submitted by an expedited motion known as an “order to show cause seeking emergency relief,” the Supreme Court granted the temporary restraining order (TRO) requested by Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens which stopped all work being performed by Consolidated Edison and its subcontractors in their planned installation of two high-voltage electrical transformers into the sidewalk abutting the residential apartment building owned by Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens’s client. Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP was successful in demonstrating that justice demands the property owner’s rights must be protected from an egregious trespass even if the defendant is a public utility. Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens’s victory in obtaining the TRO is a substantial step toward the recognition of beneficial rights arising from the reciprocal burden placed on landlords concerning sidewalk responsibility.

Shogik Oganisyan, an associate at Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens LLP, saved a client hundreds of thousands of dollars and successfully obtained a settlement of defaulted and/or docketed violations issued by various New York City agencies.

The law firm of Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP successfully defeated a claim posed by two wealthy New York City tenants that the court should reverse prior orders from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) which had luxury deregulated their apartments.

Saul Bruh, James Marino, and Robert Berman of Kucker, Marino, Winiarsky, & Bittens, LLP were instrumental in securing favorable decisions for building owners in Roberts litigation. Immediately following the Tishman Speyer v. Roberts decision in 2010, a building owner contacted Mr. Marino to discuss the effect this decision would have on some of his tenants. Mr. Marino analyzed the Court of Appeals decision, the building’s rent roll reports, individual apartment leases, and the expiration dates of the J-51 tax abatement benefits in order to determine the best way for the building owners to respond to the changes in the law.