THOMAS SHAMY DAVID HUNTER ANNMARIE HUNTER MARGARET CARROLL KELLEY LANNI TONY LANNI EVAN HORISK BETH ROSNER GIOKAS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PCV ST OWNER LP ST OWNER LP METROPOLIAN INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURACE COMPANY (2023)

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 013) 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 213, 215, 218, 219, 223 were read on this motion for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY.

This residential landlord/tenant action, which gave rise to one of the Court of Appeals' most significant rulings on the scope of Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) protection (Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., 13 NY3d 739 [2009]), was originally disposed of in accordance with the terms a judgment that the court (Lowe, J.) entered on April 10, 2013 (the Roberts judgment) (see, notice of motion, mot. seq. no.13, exhibit 11, NYSCEF doc. no. 197). The Roberts judgment (entitled "Order and Final Judgment Approving Settlement and Payment of Administrative Fees and Costs and Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards") incorporated certain terms of a settlement agreement that the parties had reached. Subparagraph (9) (j) of said settlement agreement is relevant to this motion (id.). It provides as follows:

"A Unit shall not be subject to the RSL or RSC after the expiration of the lease for that Unit in effect when the Complex in which the Unit is located no longer receives benefits under the J-51 program (that is, June 30, 2020 or such earlier date as permitted by law) regardless of whether any prior lease or lease renewal pertaining to the Unit contained a notice pursuant to RSL § 26-504 (c), known as a 'J-51 Rider.' " (d. [emphasis added]).

On December 18, 2015, defendants BPP ST Owner LLC and BPP PCV Owner LLC (BPP) purchased the properties that are the subject of this action (the Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village complexes located at East 14th Street and First Avenue in the County, City, and State of New York) after the properties' previous owners had lost them in foreclosure (see notice of motion, mot. seq. no. 013, Kalish aff, ¶¶ 2-4, NYSCEF doc. no. 184). Contemporaneously with its purchase documents, BPP also executed a regulatory agreement with the New York City Housing Development Corporation that established an "Affordable Housing Regime" to govern the rental of certain apartment units in the complexes (the BPP regulatory agreement) (id.; exhibit 8, NYSCEF doc. no. 167). Of relevance to this motion is subparagraph 3.12 of the BPP regulatory agreement, which provides as follows:

"3.12 Applicability of Rent Stabilization. Any Affordable Units subject to Rent Stabilization on the date of this Agreement will continue to be subject to Rent Stabilization unless and until such Units are deregulated pursuant to the terms of applicable law. Once an Affordable Unit is deregulated pursuant to the terms of applicable law, HDC does not intend to subject such Affordable Unit to any regulation other than the restrictions contained in this Agreement (unless HDC, in HDC's discretion, and the Owner, in the Owner's discretion, enter into a future agreement providing for further affordability). If, at any time, applicable law would allow the deregulation of any Unit (including any Affordable Unit) from Rent Stabilization, then the Owner may elect to deregulate such Unit from Rent Stabilization, but if the Unit is an Affordable Unit, it shall remain subject to the restrictions of this Agreement." (id. [emphasis added]).

On March 6, 2020, the Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village tenants' associations commenced a separate action against BPP in this court under Index Number 152397/20 (the new action) that seeks a declaratory judgment that "the RSL and ETPA [Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974] will continue to apply to all apartments within ST-PCV so long as they were recognized as being subject to the RSL and ETPA on June 14, 2019 by virtue of the HSTPA [Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019]" (see notice of motion, mot. seq. no. 013, exhibit 14, NYSCEF doc. no. 200). On August 20, 2020, BPP submitted a motion for summary judgment in the new action seeking a declaratory judgment "to Enforce [the Roberts] Judgment Approving the Roberts Settlement Agreement" (see index number 152397/20, NYSCEF doc. no. 37). On October 15, 2020, the tenants' association plaintiffs in the new action submitted a cross motion for summary judgment on their complaint (id., NYSCEF doc. no. 61). On December 2, 2020, the court (Ostrager, J.) granted the New York State Attorney General's (AG) application for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in opposition to BPP's summary judgment motion (id., NYSCEF doc. no. 89). That motion sequence is now fully submitted and pending before the court, Justice Ostrager having recused himself from both this action and the new action in orders dated April 1, 2021 and July 20, 2021, respectively (id., NYSCEF doc. nos. 114, 115).

On August 20, 2020, BPP submitted a summary judgment motion in this action that is identical to the one for declaratory relief that it had filed in the new action (see notice of motion, mot. seq. no. 013), NYSCEF document 182. The plaintiff class tenants did not submit a response to BPP's motion herein. However, on December 1, 2020, counsel for the parties in both actions executed a stipulation consenting to the AG's office's application to file an amicus curiae brief in this action (id., NYSCEF doc. no. 210). Shortly thereafter, the AG filed a brief that was identical to the one it submitted in the new action. The motions in both cases are now fully submitted. The court notes that BPP's submissions in both cases are identical and that they do not direct any different arguments against the plaintiffs in this action than those it directed against the plaintiffs in the new action. The same applies to the AG's submissions.

On April 14, 2020, Justice Ostrager issued an order permitting this action and the new action to be "heard jointly," but that order did not consolidate the two actions (see notice of motion, mot. seq. no. 012, NYSCEF doc. no. 175). This court has recently ruled that BPP's motion in the new action should be denied and that the tenants' association plaintiffs' cross motion should be granted. The court also concludes that BPP's identical motion in this action should be denied for the same reasons, even in the absence of a cross motion by the plaintiff tenants' class. The AG's identical amicus curiae brief herein affords sufficient opposition to BPP's motion to warrant that motion's denial.

The court declines to repeat the text of the new action's decision herein. Instead, in the interests of judicial economy and clarity, the court simply determines that BPP's instant motion should be denied for the same reasons set forth in its decision and order disposing of the summary judgment motion sequence in the new action.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED, pursuant to CPLR 3212, that the motion of defendants BPP ST Owner LLC and BPP PCV Owner LLC (mot. seq. no. 013) is denied for the same reasons set forth in the

decision and order disposing of motion sequence number 003 in the jointly heard action bearing Index Number 152397/20 that is encaptioned The Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village Tenants' Association, et al. v BPP ST Owner LLC and BPP PCV Owner LLC, et al.

01/04/2023

ROBERT R. REED, J.S.C.

Robert R. Reed, J.