Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
-against-
B R IE F O F A M IC U S C U R IA E M IT C H EL L -L A M A R E S ID E N T S C O A L IT IO N
IN O P P O S IT IO N T O T H E A P P E A L
Of Counsel:
Seth A. M iller August 31, 2009
P R IN T E D A N D R E P R O D U C E D O N R E C Y C L E D P A P E R
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
-i-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
111 Fourth Ave. Assoc. v. Finance Administration of the City of New York,
101 Misc.2d 950, 422 N.Y.S.2d 558 (Sup. Ct., NY Co., 1979).. . . . 19
31171 Owners Corp. v. HPD, 190 A.D.2d 441, 599 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1st Dept.,
1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Alwalt Realty Corp v. Boyland, 5 Misc.2d 1061, 160 N.Y.S.2d 504 (Sup. Ct.,
NY Co., 1957).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Demette v. Falcon Drilling Co., 280 F.3d 492 (5th Cir., 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Lower Manhattan Loft Tenants v. New York City Loft Board, 66 N.Y.2d 298,
496 N.Y.S.2d 979 (1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sack v. DHCR, 250 A.D.2d 537, 673 N.Y.S.2d 420 (1st Dept., 1998). . . . . . . . . . 12
- ii -
State of NY v. Fashion Place Assoc., 324 A.D.2d 280, 638 N.Y.S.2d 26 (1st
Dept., 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
- iii -
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
L 1955, Ch 410. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
L 1993, ch 253. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5, 14
- iv -
Real Property Tax Law §489 (7)(b)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
-v-
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
submits this brief in opposition to the appeal of Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., et al.
(“Appellants”) from the decision and order of the Appellate Division, First
Department dated March 5, 2009 (the “Decision”). The Decision reversed the
(“Respondents”). The Complaint alleged that their apartments had once been rent
stabilized and were rented to them as deregulated, but that the fact that they are
located in buildings that now receive and for decades have repeatedly received tax
exemptions and abatements under the provisions of New York City Administrative
Code §11-243 (the “J-51 Ordinance”) makes them exempt from deregulation pursuant
MLRC submits this brief in order to address issues not likely to be raised by the
recently withdrawn from the Mitchell Lama program while continuing to receive J-51
tax benefits1, comprising thousands of rent stabilized apartments, do not fit into the
1
Janel Towers and Bruckner Towers, in the Bronx, both fit this description.
-1-
categories that Appellants posit to be the key to deciding whether a building has
“become subject to [the rent stabilization] law . . . by virtue of receiving [J-51] tax
Appellants posit that all rent stabilized buildings can be divided into two
categories: those which become rent stabilized for the first time when they begin to
receive J-51 benefits, and those that were already rent stabilized when they began
receiving benefits. The apartments in Janel Towers and Bruckner Towers do not fit
into either category. They were not already rent stabilized when they began receiving
J-51 benefits, and they did not become rent stabilized solely by virtue of receiving J-
51 benefits. They are in neither category, yet when they withdrew from the Mitchell
Lama program in the middle of a multi-year J-51 benefits period, these developments
The developments in which some of the members of the MLRC live are rent
stabilized because of the impact of two separate legal mandates, one imposed by the J-
51 Program and the other imposed by the more general provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law, acting in concert. They are a concrete example of the reason why
[J-51] tax benefits” does not refer to the date when they became rent stabilized, but
instead refers to the statutory basis for making them rent stabilized. This language
-2-
plainly does not require that an apartment be rent stabilized solely because of the
receipt of J-51 benefits before it can be exempt, since an apartment can become rent
As set forth in greater detail in this brief, the deregulation provisions of the
Rent Stabilization Law§§26-504.1 and 26-504.2 were designed to harmonize with the
regulatory mandates of the J-51 Program. The plain language of the statute exempts
apartments that became or become rent stabilized by virtue of the operation of the J-
51 program. The statute that gives the City of New York (the “City”) the power to
implement the J-51 Program, RPTL §489 (the “Enabling Act”), the J-51 Ordinance,
the portions of the Rent Stabilization Law that specifically deal with the effect of
receiving J-51 benefits (e.g., RSL §26-504(c)), and the regulations (28 RCNY §5-01
et seq) adopted by the City of New York to govern the receipt of J-51 benefits, all
comprise a single unified program (the “J-51 Program”) that uniformly requires every
benefits period. No exception was ever made to permit the deregulation of single
Thus, even though a building, such as the buildings in which some members of
the MLRC live, at Janel Towers and Bruckner Towers, might at the very same instant
become rent stabilized by virtue of the losing its exemption from rent stabilization and
-3-
is exempt from deregulation. Nothing in the law requires a building to be treated
differently if it was already stabilized before getting J-51 benefits than it would be
can become rent stabilized by virtue of more than one statutory mandate, as is the case
when developments are withdrawn from the Mitchell Lama program at a time when
ARGUMENT
The language at issue in this appeal was enacted in 1993 (L 1993, ch 253, §6)
to coordinate the deregulation of high income and high rent apartments with the
existing statutory scheme under which every apartment in a building receiving J-51
assistance was required to remain rent stabilized throughout the benefit period.
income tenants and deregulating on vacancy apartments where the rent exceeded a
-4-
stabilization, but stating that “this exclusion shall not apply to housing
receiving tax benefits pursuant to section four hundred and twenty-one-a or four
This language was designed to dovetail with the numerous statutes and
regulations that were already in effect and which governed the J-51 program as it
existed in 1993.
The language that exempts apartments that “became or become subject to this
law . . . by virtue of” the J-51 Program is, firstly, a cross reference to the statute that
governs the manner by which a J-51 assisted apartment becomes rent stabilized. It is
a reference to RSL §26-504 (c), which required at the time and still requires that all of
stabilized, that every such apartment remain rent stabilized at least throughout the
time when tax benefits are received, and, if the tenant is not properly notified in every
lease of the benefits and their approximate expiration date, that every such apartment
remain stabilized until the tenant vacates. The language requiring every assisted
apartment to continue to be stabilized throughout the benefits period was not repealed
The J-51 Ordinance states (NYC Admin. Code §11-243 (i) (1)) that “the
benefits of this section shall not apply . . . to any existing dwelling which is not
-5-
subject to the provisions of the . . . city rent stabilization law.” The definition of
the term “existing dwelling” (NYC Admin. Code §11-243(a)(2)) makes it clear that
the whole building is required to be rent regulated: the term means “a class A
multiple dwelling or a building consisting of one or two dwelling units over space
used for commercial occupancy.” That language was in effect in 1993, and was not
The Enabling Act that gave the City the power to enact the J-51 Ordinance,
RPTL §489 (7) (b) (1), states that “any local law or ordinance may also provide” that
J-51 benefits “shall not apply to any multiple dwelling, building or structure . . .
which is not subject to the provisions of the emergency housing rent control law or to
local law enacted pursuant to the local emergency rent control act.”2 The operative
to be rent regulated, not individual apartments. That language was never modified to
2
The Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, Local Law No. 16 [1969] of City of NY is, on its face, a local law
enacted pursuant to the Local Emergency Housing Rent Control Act. It states, in its findings and declaration of emergency
(§1, now codified at Rent Stabilization Law § 26-501) that it is enacted under the “authority conferred by chapter twenty-one
of the laws of nineteen hundred sixty-two.” See, LaGuardia v. Cavanaugh, 53 N.Y.2d 67, 440 N.Y.S.2d 586 (1981)
(discussion of the legislative history of rent stabilization). Acting under this enabling authority, in 1975 the City first required
J-51-assisted buildings to be rent stabilized. See, Local Law No. 60 [1975] of City of NY, now codified, in greatly amended
form, at Rent Stabilization Law §26-504(c).
-6-
As of 1993 the City had promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations to
administer the J-51 program. See, 28 RCNY §5-01 et seq.3 The regulations
dwelling units” in a building receiving J-51 benefits must remain rent regulated “for
1993, therefore, it did so in a manner designed to coordinate with a City program that
regulated and remain so throughout the time when the building receives benefits.
There is no evidence that the 1993 amendments to the Rent Stabilization Law
were designed to curtail, repeal or narrow the J-51 program. Rather, the statute
simply cross references the enabling legislation for the J-51 Program, stating that
apartments that became subject to rent stabilization by virtue of the J-51 program are
exempt from deregulation. The reference to apartments that “became” subject to rent
stabilization in the past is a clear indication that the standards in existence under the J-
3
Those regulations were first published in the City Record on December 20, 1989, p 3454, col. 2.
-7-
51 Program, including the sweeping language of the regulations that requires every
assisted apartment to remain stabilized throughout the benefits period, would remain
unchanged.
In this context, the plain meaning of the language in RSL §§26-504.1 and 26-
J-51 assistance is that any apartment required to be stabilized by virtue of the then-
existing J-51 Program must remain stabilized, even if it would otherwise qualify for
deregulation. Pultz v. Economakis,10 N.Y.3d 542, 860 N.Y.S.2d 765 (2008). The
phrase that exempts them if they “became or become” stabilized “by virtue of” the J-
51 Program refers to how rent stabilization becomes applicable, not when. A legal
consequence can come about by virtue of more than one legal rule at the same time, as
the Appellate Division recognized in its Decision. Citing, Demette v. Falcon Drilling
Co., 280 F.3d 492 (5th Cir., 2002). The use of the words “became or become” does
not require an inquiry into whether the J-51 Program was the first legal rule to require
from deregulation whenever the J-51 Program requires them to be exempt, by virtue
of being located in a building in which every apartment must remain stabilized for at
easily be harmonized with the mandate of the J-51 program that requires every
-8-
apartment in a building receiving assistance to remain rent stabilized, regardless of
how high its rent might have become, both rules must be given their full effect.
N.Y.2d 186, 524 N.Y.S.2d 409 (1988). There is no evidence that the Legislature
intended to repeal this central requirement of the J-51 program, and repeals by
In their brief, Appellants Tishman Speyer Proerties, L.P. and PCV ST Owner
LP (the “Current Owners”) rely on the principle that statutes must be interpreted so as
to give effect to the overall statutory scheme. Br., p. 31, fn. 13, citing Davis v. Mich.
Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989); see also, Lower Manhattan Loft Tenants v.
New York City Loft Board, 66 N.Y.2d 298, 496 N.Y.S.2d 979 (1985) (Loft Law
interpreted in pari materia with overall scheme of rent regulation). This principle
does not help the Appellants. Rather, it contradicts their interpretation of the statute.
In this case, giving effect to the overall statutory scheme compels the
conclusion that the Legislature made no changes in the operation of the J-51 Program
It changed none of the language of the program, even though the requirement that
every assisted apartment remain rent stabilized throughout the benefits period, was a
well-known feature.
-9-
Appellants’ position on this appeal would give the deregulation statute an
absurd reading, inconsistent with its plain meaning, inconsistent with the statutory
historical context in which it was adopted, and inconsistent with both the purpose of
the deregulation provisions of the RSL and the purpose of the J-51 program.
“post-1974,” apartments from deregulation, because other apartments, in fact the vast
majority of the apartments assisted by the J-51 program, were not apartments that
“became or become” rent stabilized “by virtue of” the J-51 program. The distinction
receiving tax benefits” plainly refers to the statutory mechanism that requires an
apartment to be rent stabilized, and plainly does not refer to the date upon which it
“became” that apply when the word is used in connection with a sequence of events,
the dictionary also contains definitions that apply when the word is used to convey
[accessed July 24, 2009] (“enter or assume a certain state or condition”). The
- 10 -
by date, plainly uses the word “became” to refer to the statutory basis for treating an
apartment as stabilized.
For this reason, the decision of the Appellate Division was correct in
receiving tax benefits even if it had already been a rent stabilized apartment. The
receipt of tax benefits adds an additional statutory basis for regulation, so that
apartments that once were rent stabilized only by virtue of one statutory command
The rent stabilized apartments in the world cannot be easily divided into the
For example, some of the constituents of the MLRC reside in Mitchell Lama
developments that either have exited the Mitchell Lama program or are expected to
exit soon. Two of them, Janel Towers and Bruckner Towers in the Bronx, are
developments built before 1974 that exited the Mitchell Lama program with J-51 tax
abatements in place. Those developments became rent stabilized when they exited
apply the two categories that are the subject of Appellant’s’ hypothesis. They became
- 11 -
Apartments, Inc. v. DHCR, 5 N.Y.3d 303, 801 N.Y.S.2d 783 (2005)), and by virtue of
the receipt of J-51 tax benefits (RSL §26-504(c)), at the very same instant.
In its historical context, it is plain that the Legislature’s choice of the phrase
“became or become” was intentional, and the intent was not to limit the scope of the
became rent stabilized by virtue of receiving J-51 tax benefits, when it imposed rent
stabilization upon any apartment that had received tax benefits prior to June 30, 1985,
even if those benefits had long since expired. See, L 1985, chs 288 and 289, now
codified at RPTL §489 (7) (b) (2) and RSL §26-504 (c) (hereinafter referred to as the
“1985 Amendments”) Every apartment that came within the broad retroactive scope
receiving tax benefits, even though tax benefits were no longer being received. See,
e.g., Sack v. DHCR, 250 A.D.2d 537, 673 N.Y.S.2d 420 (1st Dept., 1998) (construing
The 1985 amendment to RSL §26-504 (c) specifically provided that rent
regulation would continue notwithstanding the “termination for any reason of the
the tenants would remain rent regulated. State of NY v. Fashion Place Assoc., 324
- 12 -
A.D.2d 280, 638 N.Y.S.2d 26 (1st Dept., 1996). This principle includes situations
beginning to receive them. Id. Under the 1985 amendments, the resulting apartments
became and remained rent stabilized, despite the fact that the building no longer
Moreover, the 1985 Amendments also stated clearly that, from June 30, 1985
forward, an apartment would remain rent stabilized even after the expiration of tax
benefits, unless the tenant’s initial lease and every lease thereafter contained notice of
the effect of the tax benefits upon the tenancy. See, East-West Renovating Co. v.
Thus, in 1993 the Legislature was mindful that there was a large category of
rent stabilized apartments that became rent stabilized by virtue of the receipt of
benefits, in buildings that no longer receive benefits. That is why the Legislature used
the word “became” to delineate the apartments that would be exempt from
deregulation. The Legislature was required to use the phrase “became or become” to
make it clear that the category of apartments that is exempt from deregulation is far
broader than the category of apartments currently receiving benefits. The language is
by no means surplusage.
Moreover, as originally enacted in 1993, the phrase “become subject to this law
. . . by virtue of receiving tax benefits” could not have the meaning posited by the
- 13 -
Appellants, because it would be an anachronism. The original 1993 statute did not
per month. Instead, the only apartments originally deregulated were apartments
already in existence. In the case of high income deregulation, the apartment had to
have “a legal regulated rent of two thousand dollars or more per month as of October
first, nineteen hundred ninety-three.” See, L 1993, ch 253, § 6. In the case of high
rent deregulation, the $2,000.00 threshold would have had to have been reached
between the effective date of the statute (July 7, 1993) and October 1, 1993.
already in existence as of 1993. This fact alone shows the absurdity of Appellants’
theory. Under Appellants’ theory, an apartment newly created in 2005, and receiving
tax benefits, would be exempt from deregulation, because it “became” subject to rent
theory, apartments in existence in 1993, that already had a legal regulated rent of
$2,000.00 or more, would not become exempt from deregulation on the receipt of J-
51 benefits, since they were already rent stabilized and could not “become” rent
In this context, it is absurd to suggest that the Legislature used the phrase
- 14 -
as a way of drastically narrowing the scope of the exemption so that it only applied to
apartments where the J-51 Program was the sole reason for becoming rent stabilized.
The phrase was plainly not added to the statute in order to repeal, by implication, the
explicit command of every component of the J-51 program, that every apartment in an
assisted building remain stabilized throughout the benefits period. The Legislature
knew perfectly well how to amend the provisions of the New York City
Administrative Code, since the Rent Stabilization Law itself is but a chapter in the
New York City Administrative Code. Since the advent of deregulation it has not
amended the J-51 ordinance, has not amended the J-51-specific language in RSL §26-
504 (c) and has not added, to the J-51 Enabling Act (RPTL §489), any reference to
deregulation.
In this context, the adoption, by the New York State Division of Housing and
apartments that are regulated “solely” by virtue of the receipt of J-51 tax benefits
(Rent Stabilization Code §§2520.11(r) (5) and (s)(2)), is entitled to no deference. The
regulation contradicts the plain meaning of the statute, purports to repeal a valid and
binding New York City ordinance, and rests upon no assertion of any particular
- 15 -
interpretation. Dworman v. DHCR, 94 N.Y.2d 359, 725 N.E.2d 613 (1999). The
issues on this appeal involve only matters of statutory interpretation. This court has
been asked to decide the meaning of the language exempting J-51 assisted apartments
from the deregulation provisions of the RSL. That decision does not depend upon
any particular facts about the apartments or about the housing market that would be
In fact, DHCR’s initial position in the wake of the initial enactment of high-rent
in high-income deregulation in 1993 was to exempt all J-51 assisted apartments from
deregulation during time when they received tax benefits. See, e.g., DHCR
DHCR changed its position, in a private January 16, 1996 letter to Sherwin
Belkin, Esq., an attorney who represents landlords (who represents two of the
Appellants now, but may not have represented them at the time) (A 58-59). The letter
revoked a prior opinion letter, and took the position now urged by the Appellants. As
authority, the agency cited only two sources: that it did not find any mention of the J-
51 exemption in the legislative history of the 1993 statute, and the dictionary. DHCR
did not purport to have examined HPD’s regulations, RPTL § 489, the J-51
Ordinance, or any material concerning the history, purpose or function of the J-51
Program.
- 16 -
DHCR, therefore, adopted its current position in reliance upon sources that the
courts are equally, if not better, equipped to evaluate: legislative history and the
dictionary meaning of statutory language. It expressly did not rely upon any
and (s)(2)) in December, 2000, approximately seven and one-half years after rent
insiders may have known about the agency’s letter to Mr. Belkin, the only information
available to the general public was that every apartment in the building assisted by the
J-51 program was required to remain rent stabilized during the entire time when the
building received benefits. This, after all, was what HPD’s regulations plainly said.
After DHCR promulgated its regulation, there were then two conflicting sets of
regulations on the books: those of the DHCR and those of HPD. Undisputedly, this
litigation represents the first time any party has obtained a judicial opinion as to
Appellants now claim they relied upon DHCR’s position, although the record
contains no factual basis for that claim. In the face of two conflicting mandates and
no resort to the courts to resolve the conflict, their claim of reliance should be viewed
with skepticism.
- 17 -
Unlike DHCR’s position, the regulatory requirements of the J-51 program have
not changed. The public and the tenants of rent stabilized buildings are entitled to
rely upon the statutes, ordinances, and regulations that have required, since long
before the advent of deregulation, that every apartment in a J-51 assisted building
remain regulated throughout the time when it receives benefits. Because that
requirement has never been repealed, the public has the right to rely upon it.
The J-51 Program is the direct successor to former J-41-2.4 of the New York
City Administrative Code (Local Law No. 118 [1955] of City of NY), enacted under
the authority of former Tax Law §5-h (L 1955, Ch 410).4 According to the 1955
1955 NY Legis Ann, 1955, at 267-268, as quoted in, Vorsanger, New York City’s J-
51 Program: Controversy and Revision, 12 Fordham Urban Law Journal 103 (1983-
1984).
4
It was renumbered as J51-2.5 pursuant to L 1963, Ch 100 §1346.
- 18 -
From the earliest days of the program, owners who sought to use J-51 benefits
to fund work that would result in deregulation were held to be ineligible for benefits.
Alwalt Realty Corp v. Boyland, 5 Misc.2d 1061, 160 N.Y.S.2d 504 (Sup. Ct., NY Co.,
substandard residential buildings. Vorsanger, Id. It was greatly expanded over the
years, so that it now covers, for example, conversions of buildings from commercial
to residential use (New York City Administrative Code §11-243 (b)(2) and (3)), the
provide housing for low and moderate income tenants (New York City Administrative
Code §11-243 (b)(9)), and the “moderate rehabilitation” of existing buildings (New
The focus, however, has always remained upon the same basic purpose: “to
increase the supply of moderate rental housing with satisfactory standards.” 111
Fourth Ave. Assoc. v. Finance Administration of the City of New York, 101 Misc.2d
950, 422 N.Y.S.2d 558 (Sup. Ct., NY Co., 1979); see also, 31171 Owners Corp. v.
HPD, 190 A.D.2d 441, 599 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1st Dept., 1993) (J-51 Program is an “effort
- 19 -
To focus the benefits the J-51 program upon the creation and maintenance of
affordable housing, both the Enabling Act and the J-51 Ordinance have been
and value of the buildings and apartments that are eligible for assistance. For
example, the limitation on the amount of the total assessed valuation of the building
that will receive an exemption under the program is designed on its face to focus
benefits on buildings with a lower assessed value. (New York City Administrative
Code §11-243 (d)(8)(c)). For example, there are geographic limitations applying
special requirements to certain areas in Manhattan: a “minimum tax zone” (New York
City Administrative Code §11-243(d)(6)) and a “tax abatement exclusion zone” (New
ones where there was a potential that tax abatement money could be used to assist
luxury housing.
Under the Rent Stabilization Law, one of the most significant factors in
increasing rent stabilized rents is the major capital improvements program, under
which landlords receive a permanent rent increase for building wide improvements.
The J-51 program provides a significant source of funding for work that
qualifies for major capital improvements increases. As a result, the J-51 Ordinance
contains specific provisions under which rent increases that are subsidized under the
- 20 -
J-51 program are required to be reduced. New York City Administrative Code §11-
243(dd) requires that the amount of a rent increase for Major Capital Improvements
be reduced by “one-half of the total amount of the tax abatement benefits which the
requires that an owner waive a portion of any MCI increase equal to “one-half of the
total annual amount of the tax abatement benefits which the property receives.”
In this context, exempting J-51 assisted buildings from high income and high
rent deregulation serves the purpose of the J-51 program. The exemption is designed
to create a disincentive against the use of a taxpayer funds to perform work that
The complexity of the J-51 ordinance reflects the efforts of the City Council
and the Legislature to implement mechanisms that would focus J-51 benefits upon the
creation and maintenance of affordable apartments, and prevent the use of those
benefits for the creation of luxury apartments. Appellants have made the policy
argument that if they are required to charge rent stabilized rent of over $2,000.00 per
month, rather than unregulated rents that are presumably well in excess of the amount
that the Legislature now deems to be “high rent”, they would no longer participate in
the J-51 tax abatement program. They argue, without factual support in the record,
- 21 -
that they would not have participated in the program if they knew that, after the rents
in the development reached $2,000.00 per month they would continue to rise only in
the manner regulated by rent stabilization. Their argument, however, begs the
question, since it is not at all clear that the Legislature or the City Council desired that
landlords who plan to deregulate large numbers of apartments receive J-51 benefits.
by tenants whose income was deemed to be “high income.” They were not intended
to permit owners to use taxpayer funds to assist them in raising rents above the
- 22 -
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Decision of the Appellate Division, First
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
By: Seth A. Miller
- 23 -