Home > Uncategorized > 478 Central Park West – My Law Suit – Join me

478 Central Park West – My Law Suit – Join me

Revised Saturday March 19th 2011 at 4:15PM

The issue is Rent Stabilization and Rent overcharges.

Our Landlord has been representing 478 Central park West as a decontrolled property when in fact the building should be a Rent Stabilized.

You too could be owed for rent overcharges. In the least you are due a Rent Stabilized apartment and the protection provided by Rent Stabilization.

Below are the details.

This Blog is to inform other tenants of 478 Central Park West about what I am going through with Mann Realty Associates / Jobman 478/480, LP with my apartment at 478 Central Park West.

Please feel free to make comments and share any information you have on this subject by clicking on the comment button above.

Below items in Bold is information from the Websites of either the DHCR, Rent Guidelines Board or others. I will note all sources in parenthesis.

In 2005 a neighbor suggested I was probably paying too much rent. He further suggested I get a statement showing the rent history of my apartment from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). I did this. What I saw in the report was that the rent on my apartment went from $422.04 as a rent controlled apartment in 1995 to a High Rent Vacancy exempt apartment in 1996, with no rent noted. In 1997 the rent is noted as a Lease renewal and the rent was now $2,152.50. The landlord also registered this Rent and noted it as RS or Rent Stabilized. The rent change is noted under “Apartment Reason for Change” as “Lease Renewal MCI (Major Capital Improvement). However the rent was not noted in the initial year of the lease, therefore there is no way to know how the Landlord did the math. I called the DHCR and asked what the calculation was to bring an apartment’s rent from $422.04 to $2,152.50 and was told I could not contest the rent as I had not brought this issue to their attention within four years of getting my lease. I asked the DHCR when there was a discrepancy in a Landlord Rent Filings how they could get away with contrary registered rents. The DHCR representative told me that as long as four years have passed since the initial registration whether or not the landlord’s statements were correct the landlord was then free of responsibility for a potential false statement. I dropped the issue as it seemed the Landlord was protected by this statute of limitation.

I later learned that Mann Realty Associates / Jobman 478/480, LP should have issued me a “Rent Stabilization Lease Rider when I signed my initial lease. Mann Realty Associates / Jobman 478/480, LP did not however acknowledge that my apartment was rent stabilized and maintained the apartment was a high rent decontrolled apartment.

To the best of my knowledge Mann Realty / Jobman 478/480, LP has never provided tenants with a “Rent Stabilization Lease rider” see NYC Rent Guidelines Board website for more information on this. If I had gotten this lease rider or if any of you other tenants of a Mann Realty / Jobman 478/480, LP Buildings had, we would have known our building was Rent Stabilized.

Here is what the Rent Guidelines Board says about the Rent Stabilization Lease rider:

By law, an owner must include a copy of the Rent Stabilization Rider with a tenant’s vacancy and renewal lease. The Rider describes the rights and obligations of tenants and owners under the Rent Stabilization Law. The Rider is only informational; its provisions do not modify or become part of the lease. Nor does it replace or modify the Rent Stabilization Law or Code, or any order from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) or the New York City Rent Guidelines Board.

The Rider informs a rent stabilized tenant signing a vacancy lease of the legal regulated rent in effect immediately prior to the vacancy, and explains how the present rent was computed.

The owner must provide all rent stabilized tenants with a copy of the Rider as follows:

1.      As an attachment to every vacancy lease signed by a new tenant on or after December 1, 1987;

2.     As an attachment to every “Renewal Lease Form” (DHCR Form RTP-8).

To view the Rent Stabilization Lease rider click here – Rent Stabilization Lease rider (Source DHCR)

In 2008 the Stuyvesant Town J-51 lawsuit came to my attention. The point of the lawsuit was the law states a building which receives J-51 tax exemptions / abatement’s would remain rent stabilized regardless of the high rent clause (apartments $2,000.00 and above) and decontrol due to a tenant making more than $175,000.00. I asked around and eventually discussed this matter with a law firm. I was told my building had received J-51 benefits and should be rent stabilized. In 2008 the Stuyvesant Town case was on appeal and I was leery of engaging a lawyer when the case could still be decided in favor of the Stuyvesant Town Landlord. However when the case was upheld in 2009 I engaged a law firm to represent me.

Here is what DHCR notes (Fact Sheet 41 Tax Abatement) about J-51 and its impact on buildings: (Source DHCR) Click here to view Fact Sheet 41 Tax Abatement

This program, administered by the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and the NYC Department of Finance (DOF), gives tax benefits to owners who rehabilitate qualifying systems in existing buildings. Examples of systems are boilers, windows, plumbing, electricity and roofs. The receipt of the tax benefits places the building under rent regulation, even if it is less than six (6) units and previously was not under regulation.

Tax benefit expiration and termination of rent regulation

The vast majority of rent regulated buildings were built before 1974 and contain six or more apartments. Many of these buildings receive J-51 tax benefits for rehabilitation work. The tax benefit period can vary, but frequently it lasts for 12 years. In these buildings, the expiration of the tax benefit period does not affect the status of the apartments, which will remain under rent regulation at the end of the tax benefit period and thereafter.

However, there are buildings that were either built or gut renovated since 1974 or contain less than six apartments that were placed under rent regulation only because the building received J-51 tax benefits. In these buildings, owners are required to include in each lease and lease renewal a notice in at least twelve point type informing the tenant that the apartment shall become deregulated upon the expiration of the last lease entered into during the tax benefit period. The notice also needs to state the approximate date on which such tax benefit period is scheduled to expire.

The failure to include this notice in all leases for the tenant in occupancy at the time the tax benefits expire means that the apartment will remain under rent regulation and the tenant can continue to renew his or her rent stabilized lease. The apartment remains rent regulated until the tenant vacates the apartment.

The inclusion of the required notice in all leases deregulates the apartment at the end of the last lease entered into during the tax benefit period.

Here is what the NYC HPD website says about J-51 Benefits:

  1. 34-year (30-years full + 4-years phase out) or 14-year (10-years full + 4-years phase out) exemption from the increase in real estate taxes resulting from the work. Affordable housing projects generally get the 34-year exemption while other projects get the 14-year exemption;
  2. Abatement of existing real estate taxes by up to 8 1/3% or 12 1/2% of the cost of the work each year for up to 20 years. Affordable housing projects generally receive the 6% abatement while other projects get the 4% abatement.

Privately-financed projects in Manhattan south of 110th Street and co-ops and condominiums generally receive some limited benefits. All rental units become subject to rent stabilization or rent control for the duration of the benefits. In rental buildings, the landlord must also waive 50% of the rent increase which would otherwise be allowed under rent stabilization as a result of the work. (I have added the bold and underlines)

Here is the link to the HPD website and pertinent information on J-51 benefits: http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/developers/j51.shtml

Initially it was my lawyers thought that there were substantial rent overcharges; however as the lawyers dug into the case they felt that due to the four year statute of limitations imposed by the DHCR my rent was close to correct.

Here’s the rub.

We come back again to a tenant not being able to go back further than four years to make a claim. This is a DHCR rule and it severely hampers a tenant’s ability to make a claim for a true amount of overcharges if he or she is past the four year date of the lease commencing. This four year restriction never felt right for me. To me it allows a Landlord to make false statements and should the four years pass then they are free of responsibility for registering a false rent.

I find that most tenants do not know of this rule. At 478 CPW we have a Landlord who has misrepresented a building as a Fair Market rental when it is not. It should be a Rent Stabilized building by virtue of what the rents should be and even if the rents are over $2,000.00 we are Rent Stabilized by virtue of the building receiving J-51 benefits.

I ask how one is supposed to know of these laws. This information is not common knowledge. I stumbled upon this information, and when I did I could not contest the rent because of the four year rule.

Many of us do not want to confront our Landlords. We are fearful of the power a Landlord wields with us the tenant. These are our homes and anything that threatens our homes  I think we do not want to upset the Landlord. I think most people tread lightly with their Landlords.

As my case went on, Mann Realty Associates / Jobman 478/480, LP delayed on discovery, I brought up to my lawyers the issue of the original cost of renovation of the building and how I felt the Landlord increased the rent incorrectly. Again my lawyers stated that the four year law came into effect and protected the Landlord. But in this particular conversation they noted that if there was intentional fraud involved on the part of the Landlord there was a case called Grimm vs. DHCR that challenged the four year rule when fraud was involved. At that time Grimm vs. DHCR was on appeal. In September of 2010 Grimm was upheld. Now I had a much better case against Mann Realty / Jobman 478/480, LP to get the correct rent on my apartment as well as the overcharges back to the origination of the lease, and a rent stabilized apartment as well.

Click here to view Grimm vs. DHCR a copy of the decision of October 19th, 2010 . We are now pursuing getting my apartment Rent Stabilized and also going after what should have been the correct initial base rent for my apartment.

Above I have a tab which shows a default formula used by the DHCR for calculating a rent when the Landlord has charged an incorrect rent at the onset of a lease. In this case the DHCR uses a rent from a similar apartment and that rent becomes the base rent.

Click here to view Rent overcharge Default Calculation this chart shows a DHCR default formula as noted above.

I am also attaching a spreadsheet showing how the rent should have calculated using the pertinent RGB orders #27 through #32. This chart shows the progression of the rent using these orders.

Click here to view Spreadsheet showing Rent Overcharge and Penalties using RGB orders 26 to 31.

Dealing with the DHCR is a difficult task. They seem to be on the side of the Landlord and not the public. There does not seem to be a level of accountability. By example they are not liable for policing whether or not Landlords are charging proper rents. This in my view is an invitation to make false statements by Landlords. It is the proverbial “Fox in the Hen house” scenario. With the four year rule it becomes a waiting game for Landlords to wait out the four years and then get a bonus should they not be discovered registering a incorrect rent. There is no fiduciary responsibility. This is the statement at the bottom of every DHCR form “ Registration Apartment Information” “DHCR does not attest to the truthfulness of the owner’s statements or the legality of the rents reported”. Given this DHCR absolves itself of any responsibility regarding how Landlords register a legal rent. I ask again who is watching the store here.

Click here DHCR Report for My Apt from the DHCR

You will see registrations going from Permanently Exempt to Rent Stabilized (2x) to Permanently Exempt to Rent Stabilized to Permanently Exempt. The rents for my apartment go up then down then up and up.

Another curious item I came across is when Mann Realty Associates / Jobman 478/480, LP rented my apartment for the first time after it was rent controlled they should not have leased the apartment. Why? NY law forbids renting an apartment that has not had its construction work signed off. Mann Realty Associates / Jobman 478/480, LP first lease after the apartment was Rent Controlled was registered as beginning on 9/15/95. The work done to this apartment was not signed off until 1/6/97 (Click here to view the DOB Job 100629278 Application Detail with my yellow highlights). DOB requirements state a apartment cannot be occupied until the work is signed off (Click here to view Provision of Law 27-217 )

You can also see that Mann Realty Associates / Jobman 478/480, LP when filing with the DOB maintained by their submission of a PW-1 they did not have to notify the DHCR regarding the status of the building. This indicates to me the beginnings of avoiding the correct filings with the DHCR. The regulations regarding filing out a PW-1 is to notify the DHCR if a building contains Rent Controlled and Rent Stabilized apartments (Click here to view pw 1 Plan Work Approval Application page 5 filing info in Yellow).

When I went to the DHCR, I found there was a lack of cooperation. I was told I was not entitled to see the paperwork submitted by Mann Realty Associates / Jobman 478/480, LP when they did the conversion of the building. On a later visit to the DHCR they told me they do not get information for building owners unless there is a claim that the Landlord was overcharging.

There could be some good news. My case against Mann Realty Associates / Jobman 478/480, LP is a class action suit, so if the class is certified by the courts and the outcome is favorable then all tenants may eventually be covered by my case. However the more tenants that are vocal and make claims and ask for a stabilized lease will make the overall case stronger.

Mann Realty Associates / Jobman 478/480, LP has responded to our court papers and in it they reveal how they deal with individuals and an their ability to make claims that lack any basis in Law or reality. Here are a few gems.

  • They state this is not my primary residence. It is.
  • They state that my apartment is not part of the J-51 abatement. To the best of my knowledge J-51 abatement’s are not subject to segregation by apartments.
  • They state that “the apartments” had outside dimension changes. At the time in question this is a patent lie. No apartments were combined or separated in the plans they filed with the DOB in 1993. In fact they way they renovated the apartments decreased the floor area by making original 5” thick walls 12” thick walls thus reducing the overall square footage of my apartment by 200 SF.
  • They maintain I acknowledged and agreed my apartment was not subject to rent stabilization. I wonder how they notified me and what I signed to note my acknowledgment.
  • My favorite item is “ Any award of retroactive damages, a declaration that plaintiff’s apartment is subject to rent stabilization, or other relief would violate defendant’s rights under the United States Constitution and the new York State Constitution”.  One has to wonder what these rights are. Are they the right to overcharge a tenant? I truly wish the lawyers for Mann Realty Associates / Jobman 478/480, LP were specific as I would love to know.

Here are some additional items of Interest:

Typical Lease renewal letter for my apartment from Mann, Click here to view my  September Renewal letter 2005

Copy of MCI filing on 478 Central Park West. Click here to view MCI Rent Increase

The page from the NYC list of Rent Stabilized buildings showing 478 as listed. Click here to view 2009 Manhattan Bldgs 478 CPW page 157

Copy of the NYC Department of Finance J-51 Benefit History Summary for 478 CPW in tax year 99/00. Click here to view http___webapps.nyc Tax Year 99-00

Pages 16 and 17 of the J-51 Guidebook, This shows a clear statement regarding how buildings receiving J-51 benefits remain stabilized. Click here to view Page 16 and 17 J-51 Guidebook

These are the orders issued by the Rent Guideline Broad that sets how much Landlords can charge for rents. It sets various percentages for Rent Increases and other items like heating charges. Click here to view RGB – Orders 3a, 26 – 32

I would like to open this discussion up to the other tenants of buildings related to Mann Realty Associates. They have six other buildings that are currently receiving J-51 benefits. These buildings are 207 Central Park North, 241 West 110th Street, 400 West 153rd. Street, 480 Central Park West, 217 Central Park North and 352 East 51st. Street. There are drop down menus for each of these buildings showing the Department of Finance “J-51 Benefit History Summary” and a page from J-51 building list showing these building are receiving J-51 benefits.

Get involved and see if you are being treated correctly. If you have any information that you feel could be helpful please send it to 478cpw.nyc@gmail.com or post it to this blog by making a comment (see comment button above).

Here is a cover my rear note. I am not a lawyer. Check what I have written above with your own lawyer.

Below I invite you all to make comments and ask questions. I will update this blog as I get new information.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. February 6, 2014 at 11:57 pm

    Good report! Being an artist myself, I really appreciated
    most of the information. Thiss really is my first-time to your site,
    buut I wipl definitely be back.

  2. March 13, 2015 at 9:16 pm

    Great article. Thanks for the info, it’s easy to understand. BTW, if anyone needs to fill out a renewal lease form, I found a blank form here.

    • March 14, 2015 at 10:22 am

      Thanks for the note. I will be updating the blog shortly.

  3. July 23, 2015 at 2:42 pm

    Many thanks for the info. We are in a similar situation in our own building and your blog and the associated court filings have been very helpful to me. Congratulations on the June 5 decision.

  1. July 8, 2016 at 10:55 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: