After the tenants won in State Supreme Court, the owners appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department. The Columbus House Tenant Association filed its September 8, 2010 response to the owners' appeal. The brief, written by attorney David Hershey-Webb of Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, establishes why the lower court's decision is correct in upholding the validity of DHCR's regulations. These regulations say that just leaving Mitchell-Lama is not by itself a "unique or peculiar circumstance" that would justify raising the tenants' stabilized rent to free market rate.

The case was brought by the landlords of several former pre-1974 Mitchell-Lamas against DHCR. DHCR's brief is too big to upload, and is available if you contact Sue.

Click on "read more" for more details and click here for an updated Chart of the U or P case to date.

The State Supreme Court ruled that Larry Gluck's Stellar Management wrongfully de-regulated apartments at Independence Plaza North.

The court ruled that because the owners had J-51 tax benefits at the time the building left Mitchell-Lama, the apartments should have been rent stabilized even though the building was built after 1974.

Click here for the decision - which Stellar is likely to appeal.

Read a Tribeca Tribune article explaining the ruling, Down Express for more.

The owners of 16 former Mitchell-Lamas have appealed the lower court ruling in the joint "Columbus 95 / Highbridge House" cases.

In the lower court, Justice Alice Schlesinger held valid DHCR's regulations that say that just leaving Mitchell-Lama is not a "unique or peculiar circumstance" that would justify a rent increase in pre-1974 buildings.

The building owners appealed to the mid-level state court for Manhattan and the Bronx, the Appellate Division, First Department. The owners filed their brief on July 12, 2010, and the Columbus 95 (Columbus House) tenants association and DHCR have until September, 8, 2010 to respond.

The Appellate Division halted ("stayed") any DHCR action on the pending "unique or peculiar" increase applications while the suit continues before that court.

Click here for a chart of the case to date.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, an influential federal court, ruled on June 25th that HUD can prevent an owner from taking a building out of Mitchell-Lama where the result would be a loss of affordable housing.

Castleton Park, on Staten Island, is a post-1973 Mitchell-Lama - so under current state law (as opposed to federal law governing HUD - the US Department of Housing & Urban Development) it would not be rent stabilized upon leaving the Mitchell-Lama program.

The tenants, with the help of Legal Aid lawyer Ellen Davidson, went to HUD for help, arguing that letting Stellar Management (Larry Gluck) take the building out of the program would result in a net loss of affordable housing. Gluck challenged this, and just lost. (The only appeal is to the U.S. Supreme Court.)

On November 25, 2009, Justice Alice Schlesinger of New York State Supreme Court

• ruled that DHCR's November 2007 regulations on "unique or peculiar circumstances" are valid, and

• sent the case back to DHCR to determine within 150 days the thousands of "unique or peculiar" applications pending regarding 24 buildings state-wide.

Click here for a copy of the decision (and click here for the corrected caption). Click on "read more" below for a summary.

Click here for a chart of the case as of July 7, 2010.

The State's highest court has ruled that owners who receive J-51 tax breaks for improving their buildings cannot simultaneously de-regulate apartments.

In a ruling concerning Stuyvesant Town / Peter Cooper Village, owned by Tishman Speyer, the NYS Court of Appeals held that the massive de-regulation of apartments was illegal.

However, how that will be implemented is not clear.

A federal district court ruled in favor of the federal Dept. of Housing & Urban Development and against Larry Gluck of Stellar Management in the case of Castleton Park on Staten Island.

The court ruled that the development could not be removed from the Mitchell-Lama program since there remains a shortage of affordable housing in the area.

Congratulations to Legal Aid attorney Ellen Davidson who represented the tenants.

On June 3, 2009, the Highbridge House and Columbus 95 cases had a hearing on the landlords' motion for summary judgment in State Supreme Court (the lowest court for this purpose). (Click here for a chart of the case updated as of July 7, 2010.)

The main issues:

I. Whether DHCR's Nov. 2007 regulations (that just leaving Mitchell-Lama is not by itself a unique or peculiar circumstance) should be applied to applications for U or P increases that were filed before the regulations became law.

II. Whether the regulations are valid.

For details, click on "read more" below.

The State's Appellate Division is permitting the owners of Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village the recent J-51 decision concerning that development. The case will soon be heard by the state's highest court - the Court of Appeals.

The Appellate Division decision, which affects hundreds of thousands of apartments in New York City, says that when a landlord gets J-51 tax breaks from the City for making improvements over a period of years, the apartments must be rent stabilized. In particular, the landlord may not deregulate an apartment based on vacancy or based on the tenants' high income and a rent of $2000 or more.

DHCR has issued guidelines for tenants who may be affected, noting "The owner also agreed to stay all eviction proceedings based solely on the market rate status of the tenancy."

To find out whether your building's landlord has a J-51 benefit now, click on ACRIS, the NY City's Department of FInance website.

Click on "read more" below for the guidelines and for an article about this.

Independence Plaza North Tenant Association has won an important step in its law suit against Gluck (Stellar Management) concerning J-51 and whether the development should have been rent stabilized.

The court sent the case back to DHCR - which supervises both Mitchell-Lamas and rent stabilized apartments - to determine whether HPD incorrectly (and retroactively) terminated the J-51 after the development left Mitchell-Lama - and therefore whether the apartments should have been rent stabilized. The court wrote, "Given the novel and important issues and their potential impact on former Mitchell-Lama projects throughout the City, the court has concluded that remand [sending the case to DHCR] is not only proper but imperative."

Click on "read more" below for details.

Click on http://www.ipnta.org/pdfs/IPN_Decision_Apr_4_09.pdf for the decision.