Matter of Fried v Lopez
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Landlord-tenant and rent-stabilization law, specifically whether a landlord in a pending holdover proceeding could still seek multiple rent-regulated apartments for personal and family use after the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) (L 2019, ch 36, Part I, § 5) [takes effect immediately and applies to any tenant in possession at or after the effective date regardless of whether the landlord acted before then] narrowed that remedy.
The Civil Court held that the tenants were entitled to dismissal of the petition insofar as asserted against them because the HSTPA amendments applied to the pending case and barred the landlord's attempt to recover the unit as part of a plan to combine multiple apartments for personal use.
The Appellate Division reversed the Appellate Term's order, which had overturned the Civil Court and reinstated the petition, and it affirmed the Civil Court's dismissal order.
The court held that the amended Rent Stabilization Law, Administrative Code § 26-511(c)(9)(b) [as amended, permits recovery of only one unit for personal or family use as a primary residence upon an immediate and compelling necessity], applied to this pending proceeding because no judgment of possession had been obtained before the HSTPA took effect. Applying the amendment was not impermissibly retroactive because the landlord had no vested right to recover the apartments for personal use.
Background
Joel Fried, the landlord of a six-unit apartment building, brought a summary holdover proceeding against Isabel Lopez and Raul Lopez, who occupied one of the units. In a companion case, he also sought to evict another tenant so he could combine all of the apartments for his own use and/or the use of family members. The proceeding originally relied on Administrative Code of the City of New York former § 26-511(c)(9)(b) [former personal-use exception to rent regulations]. While the case was pending, the Legislature enacted the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), which sharply restricted a landlord's ability to recover rent-regulated apartments for personal use.
Lower Court Decision
After the HSTPA was enacted, the tenants moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action. The Civil Court, Kings County, granted the motion and dismissed the petition insofar as asserted against Isabel Lopez and Raul Lopez.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Term reversed the Civil Court, denied the tenants' dismissal motion, and remitted for further proceedings. The Appellate Division then reversed the Appellate Term, reinstated and affirmed the Civil Court's July 31, 2019 order, and held that the petition had to be dismissed as against these tenants because the amended statute limited the landlord to recovery of only one unit upon a showing of immediate and compelling necessity.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that Part I of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 applies to pending personal-use eviction proceedings where the landlord had not yet obtained a judgment of possession. It also confirms that applying the amended Administrative Code § 26-511(c)(9)(b) in that setting is not an unlawful retroactive application because it does not expand liability for past conduct or impair a vested right.
A landlord with a pending personal-use holdover case cannot avoid the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 simply because the case began before the statute was enacted; if no possession judgment had been entered, the landlord must satisfy the new, narrower standard, and a bid to recover multiple rent-stabilized units for personal or family use will fail.