Landlord v. Tenant: April 2025

HARASSMENT

Tenant’s Harassment Claim Against Landlord Dismissed

Rent-stabilized tenant sued landlord in 2017. She sought repairs, a rent abatement, and money damages for tortious interference with contract, property damage, harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without trial.

The court ruled for landlord in part. There were triable issues of fact concerning whether repairs had been completed and whether tenant was entitled to an abatement. So the court refused to dismiss those claims. The court severed and dismissed tenant’s claim as to whether landlord tortiously interfered with tenant’s contracts causing damages since tenant last worked as an interior decorator in 2007. That was more than three years before tenant started her lawsuit against landlord. So that claim was untimely. Tenant’s property claim also was subject to a three-year statute of limitation and therefore was limited to damages occurring after May 17, 2014. Tenant’s harassment claim was dismissed because New York doesn’t recognize a common-law cause of action for harassment and tenant described no specific conduct that might qualify as harassment under the NYC Housing Maintenance Code. Tenant’s emotional distress claim was subject to a one-year statute of limitations and was unsupported by any facts.

• De Lobo v. Ennismore Apt. Inc.: Index No. 154620/2025, 2025 NY Slip Op 30101(U)(Sup. Ct. NY; 1/2/25)

RENT STABILIZATION COVERAGE

Landlord Entitled to First Rent for Newly Created Rent-Stabilized Apartment

Tenant complained to the DHCR of rent overcharge and improper deregulation of his apartment. The DRA ruled for tenant in part, finding that the apartment was subject to rent stabilization but that there was no overcharge. When tenant moved into the newly created unit on June 1, 2011, landlord was entitled to collect a first rent of $1,250 per month based on the alteration of the apartment’s outer dimensions before tenant moved in.

Tenant appealed and lost. Landlord demonstrated that it had altered the unit’s outer dimensions and was entitled to collect a first rent. No fair market rent appeal was warranted under the law. There also was no proof that tenants had occupied the altered apartment before the complaining tenant moved in. 

Landlord filed an Article 78 court appeal of DHCR’s decision. The DHCR agreed to reconsider the PAR decision, took the case back, reaffirmed its prior ruling, and noted that in a separate proceeding, the agency had denied landlord’s application for rent stabilization exemption based on claimed substantial rehabilitation of the building. 

• Dawson: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. MU410002RP (1/2/25)

RENT STABILIZATION COVERAGE

Tenant Who Requested Move to Deregulated Apartment Was No Longer Rent Stabilized

A Bronxville tenant complained to the DHCR of rent overcharge. She lived in a rent-stabilized apartment in landlord’s building, and later moved into a different, unregulated apartment in the same building. Tenant claimed that she was still rent stabilized and had been overcharged in the new apartment. The DHCR ruled for tenant and ordered landlord to refund $4,745.

Landlord filed an Article 78 court appeal of the DHCR’s decision, claiming that the new apartment wasn’t subject to rent stabilization. The court agreed and sent the case back to the DHCR for reconsideration.

The DHCR then ruled for landlord and dismissed the overcharge claim. As the Westchester County court found, tenant initiated the apartment move request, “moved voluntarily,” and was notified by landlord in the new lease agreement that the new apartment was deregulated. Tenant submitted no proof that she had moved at landlord’s behest. The DHCR noted that there was no legal requirement that landlord obtain written acknowledgment from tenant before tenant’s rental status could be changed. 

• Alscot Realty: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. MU910001RP (1/10/25)