New York Law Review

Berkeley Kay Corp. v. New York City Conciliation and Appeals Bd., 68 N.Y.2d 852 (1986): Limits on Retroactive Rent Reclassification

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Berkeley Kay Corp. v. New York City Conciliation and Appeals Bd., 68 N.Y.2d 852 (1986)

Rent control agencies cannot retroactively reclassify properties and roll back rents to periods prior to the effective date of the statute authorizing the reclassification, especially when it impairs landlords’ accrued substantive rights.

Summary

Berkeley Kay Corp., owner of the Hotel Berkeley, challenged a decision by the New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB) to reclassify the hotel as an apartment building and roll back rents to June 30, 1982. The CAB’s decision stemmed from tenant complaints about the lack of hotel services. The New York Court of Appeals held that while the CAB (and later, the DHCR) could reclassify the building prospectively under the Omnibus Housing Act of 1983, it could not retroactively roll back rents to a date before the Act’s effective date (June 30, 1983). The court reasoned that the Act was prospective and could not impair the landlord’s substantive rights that had accrued prior to that date. The case was remitted for individual consideration of tenant complaints.

Facts

  • Berkeley Kay Corp. owned the Hotel Berkeley, classified as a rent-stabilized hotel.
  • Between June 30 and November 10, 1982, 26 tenants filed complaints with the CAB, alleging a lack of required hotel services or that the premises were rented as apartments.
  • The owner did not deny failing to provide typical hotel services.
  • On January 26, 1984, the CAB reclassified the hotel as an apartment building and ordered a rent rollback to June 30, 1982, along with refunds of excess rent and security deposits.

Procedural History

  • Berkeley Kay Corp. filed an Article 78 proceeding challenging the retroactive reclassification.
  • Supreme Court partially granted the petition, annulling the rent rollback to 1982.
  • The Appellate Division modified the order and dismissed the petition, upholding the rent rollback based on Amended Hotel Code § 33(g).
  • The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the CAB had the authority to retroactively reclassify the property and order rent rollbacks to a date prior to the effective date of the Omnibus Housing Act of 1983.

Holding

No, because the Omnibus Housing Act is prospective and cannot impair the landlord’s substantive rights that accrued prior to its effective date.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized the prospective nature of the Omnibus Housing Act. The statute states that after a determination that a building is not a hotel, “it shall thereafter be subject to this law.” (emphasis in original). The Court reasoned that the CAB’s action improperly nullified hotel guidelines increases that accrued before the Act’s June 30, 1983 effective date. The court stated, “The Omnibus Housing Act is prospective and it cannot affect the substantive rights of landlords that accrued prior to effective date by authorizing retroactive reclassification of the premises or rollback of the rents.” The court distinguished Matter of Ansonia Holding v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., noting that deficiencies in services in that case applied to common areas of the building and affected all tenants. Here, the deficiencies related to individual tenants. The court interpreted Amended Hotel Code § 33(g) as only allowing adjustments for complaining tenants, not a building-wide rollback. It stated, “[U]nder this section, the Board could order the owner to refund to the complaining tenants that portion of the past rents which reflect the value of services not provided by the owner, but section 33 (g) adjustments could not be made to noncomplaining tenants who did not seek administrative relief nor could it be used to justify a pre-1983 reclassification of the property and rollback of the rents.” The case was remitted to consider individual tenant complaints and potential rent adjustments based on the lack of provided hotel services.

More ARTICLES