As we explained in our case summary, the question in this case is whether the “useful life” rule applies to individual apartment improvements that a property owner makes to a rent-regulated apartment and, if so, whether the owner bears the burden of proof at trial to demonstrate compliance with the rule. In a unanimous memorandum opinion, the Court answered yes to both questions.
Under the rent-regulation laws, an owner of a rent-regulated apartment that increases rent for installing “new equipment, or new furniture or furnishings,” can’t obtain another rent increase for installing “similar equipment, or new furniture or furnishings,” within the useful life of the previous installation.
Here, Windermere Owners LLC, an apartment owner, increased the rent it charged to Laura DiLorenzo, a rent-regulated tenant, for apartment improvements made in 2009. DiLorenzo sued to invalidate the rent increase, arguing that the 2009 rent increase was within the useful life of improvements in 1995 and 1998 for which Windermere had already increased the rent. Supreme Court found for DiLorenzo after a bench trial, concluding that Windermere failed to prove that the rent increase occurred after the useful life of the prior increases. The First Department reversed, ruling that DiLorenzo had forfeited her useful life argument by failing to raise it in her complaint or by motion; holding that a defendant does not bear the burden of showing that an improvement occurred after the useful life of a prior improvement; and, based on its own factual findings, finding in Windermere’s favor.
The Court of Appeals reversed the First Department.
On forfeiture, the Court held that DiLorenzo had “expressly raised the useful life issue in her pretrial memorandum,” thereby preserving it for appeal.
The Court then ruled that Supreme Court correctly “found that [Windermere] failed to meet [its] burden to prove that the improvements in question satisfied the useful life requirement.” In the Court of Appeals’ view, Supreme Court’s factual findings “more nearly comport with the weight of the evidence.” Although the Court of Appeals ordinarily lacks factual review power, CPLR 5501(b) allows it to review facts when, as here, the Appellate division “has expressly or impliedly found new facts and a final judgment pursuant [to those findings] is entered.”