Marantz v. MD CBD 180 Franklin, LLC

Opinion

Marantz v MD CBD 180 Franklin, LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 05094

August 26, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Ruth Marantz, et al., respondents,

v

MD CBD 180 Franklin, LLC, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 26, 2026

2023-00915, (Index No. 521055/20)

Cheryl E. Chambers, J.P.

Paul Wooten

Lillian Wan

Phillip Hom, JJ.

Belkin Burden Goldman, LLP, New York, NY (Magda L. Cruz, Matthew S. Brett, and Sherwin Belkin of counsel), for appellant.

Newman Ferrara LLP, New York, NY (Lucas A. Ferrara and Roger A. Sachar of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In a putative class action to recover damages for rent overcharges in violation of Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-512, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), dated January 12, 2023. The order granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew their opposition to the defendant's prior motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, which had been granted in an order of the same court dated September 30, 2021, and, upon renewal, vacated the order dated September 30, 2021, and thereupon, denied the defendant's prior motion.

ORDERED that the order dated January 12, 2023, is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs, who are tenants in a building under the RPTL 421-a tax abatement program, commenced this putative class action against the defendant, the owner of the building, to recover damages for rent overcharges in violation of Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-512. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the defendant evaded the RPTL 421-a tax abatement program's requirements and governing rent stabilization laws by using rent concessions to register a legal regulated rent higher than the monthly rent charged and paid by each tenant.

Thereafter, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs opposed the motion. In an order dated September 30, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for leave to renew their opposition to the defendant's prior motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. In an order dated January 12, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion and, upon renewal, vacated the order dated September 30, 2021, and thereupon, denied the defendant's prior motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. The defendant appeals.

"As relevant here, a motion for leave to renew must demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination" (Pryce v Nationstar Mtge., LLC, 224 AD3d 857, 858; see CPLR 2221[e][2]; Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v Sampson, 216 AD3d 695, 695). "'A clarification of the decisional law is a sufficient change in the law to support renewal'" [*2](Bank of Am., N.A. v Levada, 241 AD3d 1510, 1511, quoting U.S. Bank N.A. v Hall-Davis, 232 AD3d 696, 697 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the plaintiffs demonstrated that there had been such a change in decisional law based upon the decisions in Chernett v Spruce 1209, LLC (200 AD3d 596) and Flynn v Red Apple 670 Pac. St., LLC (200 AD3d 607).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiffs' allegations that the defendant improperly manipulated the initial legal regulated rents of apartments in the building through the offering of concessions to tenants were sufficient to state a cause of action (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] 2521.1[g]; Bascom v 1875 Atl. Ave Dev., LLC, 227 AD3d 767, 768; Wise v 1614 Madison Partners, LLC, 214 AD3d 550).

Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiffs' causes of action fell within the applicable four-year limitations period (see CPLR former 213-a; Administrative Code of City of NY former § 26-516[a][2]) in light of the tolling of time limitations pursuant to Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8) (see Flynn v Red Apple 670 Pac. St., LLC, 200 AD3d at 608-609).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew their opposition to the defendant's prior motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint and, upon renewal, vacated the order dated September 30, 2021, and thereupon, denied the defendant's prior motion.

CHAMBERS, J.P., WOOTEN, WAN and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court