Opinion
Index No. 152938/2014 Motion Seq. No. 009
01-22-2024
CENPARK REALTY LLC, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN APPLBAUM, BARBARA APPLBAUM Defendant.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: HON. SUZANNE J. ADAMS, Justice.
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
SUZANNE J. ADAMS, J.S.C.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251,252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261,262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277 were read on this motion to/for REFERENCE - OTHER.
Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that defendants' motion is granted to the extent set forth hereinbelow. Plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the building located at 360 Central Park West, New York, New York, and defendants were the tenants of an apartment there from September 1, 2000, to December 17, 2017. Plaintiff originally commenced this action in 2014, seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that defendants' apartment unit was lawfully regulated and not subject to rent stabilization or rent control laws. Defendants' answer interposed counterclaims regarding alleged rent overcharges. In November 2014, defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, for a declaratory judgment to the effect that their apartment was subject to the rent stabilization laws, and for "costs, disbursements, reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper." By decision, order, and judgment dated May 14, 2015 (Coin, J.), this court adjudged and declared that certain apartments at the subject building were subject to rent stabilization under New York City law, and also denied an award of attorneys' fees from plaintiff. The May 2015 decision covered several actions involving other apartments in the same building, but omitted mention of the instant action. Thereafter, in June 2016, defendants moved to correct the May 2015 decision to include them, as well as to compel certain discovery, which motion was granted by decision and order dated October 5, 2016. Further motion practice in 2017 - defendants' motion for summary judgment on the overcharge counterclaims and plaintiffs summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of said counterclaims - resulted in Judge Coin's December 18,2017, decision and order (deciding both motions). This order granted both motions in part, and referred the issues of the legal regulated rent and the amount of defendants' reasonable attorneys' fees to a special referee to hear and report with recommendations.
In a report and recommendation dated April 24, 2019, Special Referee Phyllis Sambuco recommended, inter alia, that defendants were not entitled to attorneys' fees because Judge Coin's May 2015 decision and order did not grant an award of attorneys' fees and was thus "law of the case." Plaintiff then moved to confirm the report and defendants cross-moved to reject it, and defendants also made a motion to renew and reargue in light of the enactment of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act ("HSTPA"), which was enacted after the motion and crossmotion were filed. The HSTPA amended Rent Stabilization Law §26-516 to provide that a court "shall" award attorneys' fees to a tenant who is a prevailing party in an overcharge claim. This court (Kennedy, J.) then issued a decision and order addressing these three motions dated January 6, 2020, that determined, inter alia, that defendants were entitled to certain treble damages and attorneys' fees under HSTPA, and referred the determination of these amounts back to the special referee. Because of the disruptions occasioned by the global pandemic, it was not until September 2022 that this matter was assigned to JHO Charles Ramos as special referee to issue the further report and recommendation. His report, dated May 9, 2023, found that based upon the recent Court of Appeals case Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. &Community Renewal, 35 N.Y.3d 332 (2020), defendants were not entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, but were entitled to certain treble damages. Defendants now move pursuant to CPLR 4403 to reject JHO Ramos' report, and pursuant to CPLR 4403 and Justice Kennedy's January 6, 2020, decision and order to award overcharge damages in the amount of $41,069.89 and attorneys' fees in the amount of $60,915.53, plus additional fees and expenses incurred through the date of this court's decision. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
The record before the court supports a partial affirmation of JHO Ramos' report and recommendation. With respect to an award of attorneys' fees, JHO Ramos' report repeats the error that originated in Special Referee Sambuco's report, namely that Judge Coin's May 2015 decision became "law of the case" in denying an award of attorneys' fees. The motion before the court resulting in the May 2015 decision was to consolidate certain actions and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. There was no relief requested in connection with defendants' counterclaims, as the answer was filed simultaneously with the summary judgment motion. The request for "costs, disbursements, reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper" pertained to the costs and fees associated with that motion, as is routinely requested in most motion practice. Judge Coin's December 2017 decision addressed, inter alia, defendants' motion on their counterclaims, and ruled on each specific counterclaim. Judge Coin ruled that two counterclaims were moot, one was denied, one was dismissed, and three were granted, including the Sixth Counterclaim for an award of attorneys' fees. Had Judge Coin intended her earlier decision to deny attorneys' fees to refer to the counterclaim request rather than the routine motion fees request, then she easily could have denied the Sixth Counterclaim as moot, just as she held that the First Counterclaim as moot in accordance with her earlier order. Thus there is no basis for either Special Referee Sambuco's or JHO Ramos' recommendation to deny attorneys' fees. On the instant motion defendants have presented a factual basis for the amount of fees sought herein, and there has been no substantive challenge to said amounts. With respect to the calculation of overcharge damages, however, the court accepts the report of JHO Ramos. The calculations he has set forth are in accordance with Regina Metro. Co. and with payments already made to defendants. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the report and recommendation of JHO Charles Ramos dated May 9,2023, is confirmed to the extent that defendants are awarded additional overcharge and treble damages in the amount of $10,739.52 for the reasons set forth in said report; and that defendants are awarded attorneys' fees on their Sixth Counterclaim in the amount of $60,915.53; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants Allen Applbaum and Barbara Applbaum and against plaintiff Cenpark Realty LLC in the amount of $10,739.52, together with interest at the statutory rate from the date of this order through the date of entry of judgment, as calculated by the Clerk, together with costs and disbursements to be taxed by the Clerk; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants Allen Applbaum and Barbara Applbaum and against plaintiff Cenpark Realty LLC for attorneys' fees in the amount of $60,915.53.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.