Abdelrazek v 12-15 Broadway Astoria, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Residential landlord-tenant and rent stabilization law. The case concerns alleged building-wide rent overcharges based on incorrect initial rent registrations and whether tenants could pursue those claims as a class action in court.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the tenants' motion for class certification and approval of a class notice, and denied the landlord's cross-motion under CPLR 3211(a)(5) [motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds] to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.
The Appellate Division reversed the denial of class certification, certified a class of all tenants who occupied units in the building between January 26, 2017, and the filing of the complaint, and remitted for a new determination on the proposed class notice. It affirmed the denial of the landlord's statute-of-limitations dismissal motion.
The tenants showed sufficient indicia of fraud to permit review of rental history beyond the normal four-year limitations period under CPLR former 213-a [former four-year statute of limitations for rent overcharge claims], defeating dismissal at the pleading stage. They also satisfied the class-action requirements because the alleged fraudulent overcharge scheme presented predominant common issues, their claims were typical, they could adequately represent the class, and a class action was superior to individual proceedings. The court also held that tenants were not required to proceed first before the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), because DHCR and the courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
Background
Current and former tenants of a Queens apartment building brought a putative class action in 2021 against the building owner, alleging rent overcharges and violations of the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, including Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-517(a)(4) [rent registration requirement], and the Rent Stabilization Code, including 9 NYCRR § 2521.1(g) [provision governing lawful rent calculations/registration-related compliance]. The tenants claimed the owner registered incorrect initial legal regulated monthly rents in 2013 and 2014, which allegedly caused later overcharges for all tenants in the building. They sought class certification and approval of a class notice. The owner opposed and argued the claims were untimely because the challenged initial registrations occurred more than four years before suit.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court denied the tenants' motion for class certification and for approval of the proposed notice of class action. It also denied the landlord's cross-motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(5).
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the landlord was not entitled to dismissal because, although pre-Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 overcharge claims are governed by the four-year limitations rule, the tenants alleged sufficient indicia of a fraudulent scheme to justify examining rental history before the base date. The court further held that class certification should have been granted because common issues regarding whether the landlord engaged in a building-wide fraudulent overcharge scheme predominated over individual issues, differences among tenants mainly affected damages, the named plaintiffs and counsel could adequately protect the class, and a class action was the superior method of adjudication. The court limited the class period to tenants occupying units from January 26, 2017, through the filing of the complaint, and remitted for a new determination on the sufficiency of the proposed class notice.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that in rent overcharge litigation involving pre-2019 conduct, courts still apply CPLR former 213-a and the prior four-year framework described in Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, but a colorable fraud claim can permit review of rental history outside that period. It also confirms that building-wide rent overcharge allegations may be appropriate for class treatment when the claims stem from a common rent-registration practice or fraudulent scheme. Finally, it emphasizes that courts and the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) have concurrent jurisdiction over rent overcharge claims, so plaintiffs may choose to sue in court rather than proceed administratively first.
New York tenants alleging a common fraudulent rent-registration scheme can obtain class certification in court, and a landlord cannot defeat such claims as untimely at the outset where the complaint pleads substantial indicia of fraud allowing review beyond the normal four-year rent overcharge lookback.