In the Matter of SK v. A* et al., the dispute centered on whether the 2019 Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA)—a sweeping reform of rent laws—should apply retroactively to eviction proceedings that were already underway when the law was enacted.
SK, the landlord and petitioner, initiated holdover proceedings in 2017 and 2018 against tenants occupying three units in a six-unit rent-stabilized building in Brooklyn. His stated intent was to reclaim the units to convert the building into a two-family residence for personal use. At the time, the Rent Stabilization Law allowed landlords to recover multiple units for personal or family use without needing to show an “immediate and compelling necessity.”
However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically with the passage of HSTPA in June 2019. Among its many reforms, HSTPA amended the “personal use” exception to limit landlords to recovering only one unit and imposed a new requirement: landlords must demonstrate an “immediate and compelling necessity” for reclaiming the unit. Crucially, the statute specified that it would apply to any tenant in possession at the time of enactment, regardless of when the landlord initiated proceedings.
The tenants moved to dismiss the petitions, arguing that K*’s claims no longer satisfied the stricter HSTPA standards. The Civil Court agreed, dismissing the petitions. However, the Appellate Term reversed that decision, holding that HSTPA did not apply to pending cases.
On appeal, the Appellate Division reinstated the Civil Court’s original ruling, siding with the tenants. In a detailed opinion, the court emphasized that HSTPA’s language clearly indicated legislative intent for retroactive application to tenants still in possession. Since K* had not yet obtained a judgment of possession when HSTPA took effect, the amended law applied. The court also rejected K*’s constitutional challenge, finding no due process violation.
This decision is notable for being the first by an Appellate Division in New York to interpret the retroactivity of HSTPA’s “personal use” provision. It underscores the judiciary’s willingness to enforce tenant protections even when they disrupt long-standing landlord expectations. The ruling affirms that legislative clarity and tenant stability take precedence over procedural timing, especially in the context of sweeping statutory reform.
Bet the landlord thought that was a halting decision ....
# # #
DECISION