The wave of Financial District tenants going to court to demand restitution from years of illegally high rent gathered further momentum on Tuesday, when another tenant at 50 Murray Street filed court papers arguing that she is entitled to rent stabilization protection along with reimbursement for six years worth of overcharges, and triple damages.
Heather Horn moved into 50 Murray Street in May, 2014, at an initial rent of $4,695 per month. Since then, according the documents filed with the new York State Supreme Court, she has renewed her lease six times, and her rent has increased by almost 26 percent, to $5,900.
These increases are based on unregulated market rates, under which landlords are legally free to raises rents as much as they believe that can get from tenants. But increases limited to those allowed rent stabilization during the same years yield a very different set of numbers.
The City’s Rent Guidelines Board (RGB), which regulates increases for rent-stabilized apartments, has allowed rents to rise only four times since Ms. Horn moved into 50 Murray Street: in 2015 (1.0 percent), 2017 (1.25 percent), 2018 (1.5 percent), and 2019 (1.5 percent). For 2016, 2020, and 2021, the RGB permitted no increases at all.
These four rent escalations, when compounded, yield a total increase 5.35 percent. This means that today, Ms. Horn’s maximum allowable rent should be approximately $4,946.18. But the amount she was actually paying climbed above this benchmark in the first lease renewal she signed, in 2015, when she began paying $5,095. (The 1.0 percent increase authorized for that year would have permitted her rent to climb just to $4,741.95.) Over the following two years, when the RGB authorized no increases at all, Ms. Horn’s rent climbed to $5,300 and $5,565. When the Board began authorizing small increases again, in 2018, her maximum authorized rent could have increased to $4,801.22. But her landlord raised it to $5,634. In the following two years, the RGB allowed increases of 1.5 percent, which means that Ms. Horn’s rent could have legally increased to $4,813.08 (in 2019) and $4,885.27 (for 2020). But the renewal leases the landlord presented her with instead jumped the rent to $5,850 and $5,900.
Based on these calculations, it appears that Ms. Horn has paid approximately $55,422.96 in illegally high rent since 2014. The lawsuit she filed on Tuesday is asking for reimbursement for all overcharges, plus interest, plus triple damages (as provided for under the Rent Stabilization Law and Code), plus attorney’s fees and expenses. While the interest, expenses, and legal fees are difficult to calculate, just the reimbursement and damages portion of her claim appears to come to approximately $221,691.
At issue is the 421-g subsidy program, which was designed to encourage Downtown’s transformation into a residential district, by offering rich incentives (chiefly in the form of tax abatements) to developers who converted former office buildings, south of a line connecting Murray Street to City Hall and the Brooklyn Bridge, into apartment towers. But it also offered a potent lure for tenants who moved into such buildings: Their apartments would be subject to rent stabilization regulations for as long as building owners received the tax benefits.
But tenants at half a dozen buildings have come to realize that their landlords did not offer the legally required benefits and protections of rent stabilization. This has led to litigation not only at 50 Murray Street, but also at 90 West Street, 90 Washington Street, 63-67 Wall Street, Ten Hanover Square, and 53 Park Place.
Court papers related to all of the lawsuits allege that in these buildings, very few (in some cases, none) of the apartments were ever registered with City or State regulatory agencies as being subject to rent stabilization. The suits also contend that tenants were never informed of their rights to rent-stabilized leases, and instead were compelled to pay unregulated, market-rate rents and subsequent increases.
The language of the 421-g statute that covered all of these buildings (and dozens of other structures, comprising a total of nearly 5,000 apartments) was unequivocal, stating that “the rents of each dwelling unit in an eligible multiple dwelling shall be fully subject to control under such local law.” Ambiguity arose, however, when this was considered in the light of another part of New York’s housing law, known as “luxury decontrol,” which allowed (until being repealed in 2019) for rent stabilization to be annulled on any apartment once the legal rent reaches a threshold of $2,700 per month.
This incentivized developers to set the rent on the vast majority of the apartments they had created in these newly converted buildings at higher than $2,700 per month. It had the effect of erasing the rent stabilization benefit that the legislature had intended for tenants (usually before the first renter moved in), while preserving the tax benefit for landlords. In the years since, landlords and developers have, in the aggregate, reaped a windfall of tens of millions of dollars from this program. But tenants received very little benefit or protection from the rent stabilization that had been intended for them.
The landlord of 50 Murray purchased 70 battery place several year ago and raised the rent 26% as well and the building has some rent control units still below market rate. Are the tenants of 70 battery subject to the same ruling?