Complaint 7-25-17 (Stamped)

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2017 01:00 PM INDEX NO.
156665/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY
YEN HSANG CHANG, RYAN BALAS,
DEIRDRE BALAS, CLEMENT CHAN, Index No.:
MATTHEW HAENSL Y, DINA MANN, SCOTT
CHAPMAN, KENNETH HICKS, STEVE
CHERUIYOT, RANDY GARCIA, TIFFANY LEE,
T AILEEN JOA, MELODY MERKER, GARY
TOPP, KRISTINA BONHORST, KENT HAINA PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION
JR. ANDREW KELTZ, DARRYL COMPLAINT
WASHINGTON, MEGAN HAGAR, SHIRLEY
OVID MITCHELL, CYNTHIA LOWE, DANIEL
LORIA, NICOLE COCCHIARO, ANN VOTAW,
SALVA TORE RUSSO, ELIZABETH BOUK,
NETANIA BUDOFSKY, JESSICA GOLDHIRSH,
JOSEPH OSTWALD, ANDREW O'BRIEN,
LAURA PIRAINO, TIMOTHY BARKER
JONATHAN LEUNG, LUKE VAN DER VEER.
JOSEPH RICCARDI. ADRIENNE RICCARDI.
HENRY N!CPONSKl, RYAN CLAPP.
MOHAMMAD ISLAM, UJKASZ JANIK,
YOLANDA NUNLEY, MICHAEL ALBERTSON,
ADINA WOLL JONATHAN O'GRADY, DAVJD
ISAACS, STEPHEN MACJOCH, ISABELLA
CARDONA, MICHAEL WILKE, SHUC!1JN
SHUKLA, .lEN WATSON, KERRY MCFATE,
DESIREE GRENA Y, JONATHAN GRENA Y,
TIMOTHY MORAN, LORNE HEJLBRONN, J.L.
DUFFY, PHYLLIS HJRSHORN, HANS
KLUEFER, KATHERINE KLUEFER, JOSEPH
CRACCO. DA VJD WALKER, FLORENCE
LAGAMMA, MARY LEVITT, MARISSA
KOELLER, GABRIELLA GARCIA, CAROLINA
BOTERO, and ADEOLA ROLE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
-v-
BRONSTEIN PROPERTIES, LLC and BARRY

RUDOFSKY
Defendants.
1 of 47
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2017 01:00 PM INDEX NO. 156665/2017
COME NOW, Plaintiffs Yen Hsang Chang, Ryan Balas, Deirdre Balas, Clement Chan,
Matthew Haensly, Dina Mann, Scott Chapman, Kenneth Hicks, Steve Chemiyot, Randy Garcia,
Tiffany Lee, Taileen Joa, Melody Merker, Gary Topp, Klistina Bonhorst, Kent Haina Jr.,
Andrew Keltz, Darryl Washington, Megan Hagar, Shirley Ovid Mitchell, Cynthia Lowe, Daniel
Loria, Nicole Cocchiaro, Ann Votaw, Salvatore Russo, Elizabeth Bonk, Netania Budofsky,
Jessica Goldhirsh, Joseph Ostwald, Andrew O'Brien, Laura Piraino, Timothy Barker, Jonathan
Leung, Luke VanDer Veer, Joseph Riccardi, Adrienne Riccardi, Henry Nicponski, Ryan Clapp,
Mohammad Islam, Lukasz Janik, Yolanda Nunley, Michael Albertson, Adina Wolf, Jonathan
O'Grady, David Isaacs, Stephen Macioch, Isabella Cardona, Michael Wilke, Shuchin Shukla,
Jen Watson, Kerry McFate, Desiree Grenay, Jonathan Grenay, Timothy Moran, Lome
Heilbronn, .LL. Duffy, Phyllis Hirshorn, Hans Kluefer, Katherine Klucfer, Joseph Cracco, David
Walker, Florence LaGamrna, Mary Levitt, Marissa Koeller, Gabriella Garcia, Carolina Botero,
and Adeola Role (collectively ''Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, by and through their attorneys, bring this class action complaint against Defendants
Bronstein Properiies LLC and Barry Rudofsky (collectively "Defendants").
Plaintifls' allegations are based upon knowledge as to their own acts and experiences and
upon infonnation and belief as to all other matters.
Plaintiffs' information and belief is based upon, among other things, a comprehensive
analysis unde1taken by their attorneys, public records, tenancy-related documents, and the
relevant law.
Plaintiffs believe that after a reasonable opportunity for discovery, substantial additional
evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein.
2 of 47
INTRODUCTION
I. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to end the illegal and fraudulent practices employed
by Defendants over the course of their ownership and operation of over I 00 apmiment buildings
in the City and State of New York (the "Bronstein Portfolio").
2. In sum, Bronstein Properties LLC ("Bronstein"), under the direction of Defendant
Barry Rudofsky ("Rudofsky"), has, for years, pursued (and continues to pursue) a scheme
designed to inflate rents over and above the amounts which it is legally pem1itted to charge.
3. New York City's Rent Stabilization Law ("RSL''), and the Rent Stabilization
Code ("RSC"). promulgated by New York State's Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(''DJ-ICIZ"). generally permit New York City landlords to increase the legal regulated rent on
rent -stabilized apmiments for J(JUr primary reasons.
4. The RSL and RSC permit landlords to take an increase in the legal regulated rent
during the occupancy of an apartment, as annually provided for by the Rent Guidelines Board
("RGB").
5. The RSL and RSC permit landlords to take an increase in the legal regulated rent
if there is a vacancy in the apartment.
6. The RSL and RSC pennit landlords to take an increase in the legal regulated rent
if they perfo1111 a Major Capital Improvement ("MCI''). such as replacing a roof, or installing a
new elevator. MC!s must be submitted to, and approved by, DHCR, and the RSL and RSC
require that tenants be infonned before any MCI increase is taken.
7. Finally, landlords can take m1 increase in the legal regulated rent if they perfonn
an Individual Apmiment Improvement ("!AI'').
3 of 47
8. lAls are items such as new doors, counters, and cabinets, which improve the
apartment, rather than a repair, such as painting the apartment, or polishing a wood floor.
9. Generally speaking, and as described more fully below, landlords are entitled to
an mcrease in the legal regulated rent of 1/40th (or 1/60th where the building contains 36
apartments or more) of the cost of an I AI, per month.
10. lAls typically take place when an apartment is vacant.
11. Although DHCR is charged with enforcing the RSL and RSC, the agency itself
has historically operated on the honor system: with landlords merely reporting increases in rent,
and DHCR taking the landlord at its word that increases in the legal regulated rent were justified
by performed IAls.
12. Not surprisingly, some landlords- - such as Bronstein - -have taken advantage of
the lack of transparency and oversight.
13. After allowing for RGB increases, vacancy increases, and MC! increases (where
applicable), Plaintiffs are able to determine, with a high degree of ceriainty, the amount of lAls
that would have been required to justify the cuiTcnt legal regulated rent.
14. Rental spikes, such as those identified below for each Plaintiff: require tens of
thousands of dollars in IAls to justify the legal regulated rent being charged.
15. Since they actually occupy the uniis, Plainiiffs have good cause to believe that
Defendants never performed IA!s in the amounts required to justify their current rent levels.
16. As an example of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff Clement Chan and Matthew
Haensly's rent-stabilized apartment, located at 43-32 47th Street in Queens, experienced a rent
spike of $1 ,316.86, 141% over and above the legal regulated rent paid by the prior tenant to
occupy the apartment.
4 of 47
17. To justify that increase, Bronstein would have had to perfonn more than
$67,800.00 in IA!s during the unit's vacancy. 1
18. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount took place. To the contrary, an
inspection of that apartment supports the conclusion that they did not.
19. Plaintiff Yen Hsang Chang's apm1ment at 309 W. 57'h St. similarly evidences
unperfonned or over-exaggerated IAis.
20. Plaintiff Chang's apartment is a studio, with total area of under 400 square feet.
21. In 2014. Defendants deregulated Plaintiff Chang's apartment, which would have
required $82,800.00 in IAls.
22. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Plaintiff
Chang's studio.
23. To the contrary, an inspection of that apmiment suppmis the conclusion that they
did not.
24. Further demonstrating that IAls claimed by Defendants were either exaggerated
or never performed, the buildings occupied by the members of the Class suffer a dearth of
Department of Buildings (''DOB'') work permit requests.
25. With the exception of 309 W. 57'h Street, which has two pem1its for work that
could conceivably be considered iAis, not a single other building occupied by a Plaintiff in this
2
action, has an !AI related pennit.
26. For instance, 30 Seaman A venue in Manhattan has no permits related to !Ais.
1
To calculate the required IAis for the purposes of this pleading. the maximum vacancy and MCI allowances were
assumed (20% for vacancy and 6% for MCI allowances where listed in the tenant's rent history) and the amount of
IAls to justify any further increases \vas calculated by multiplying any such surplus increase by 40 or 60, depending
on the number of units in the building and the time at which the vacancy occuned.
2
The two work permits at 309 W. 57 111 Street are not for Plaintiff Chang's apartment, where Defendants purpmi to
have perfonned $R2,ROO.OO in work.
5 of 47
27. However, to justify the rent being charged at 30 Seaman Avenue, Defendants
would have had to perfonnlAls in the following amounts:
Apt. JB: $22,400.00

Apt. IE: $ 19,700.00
Apt. lL: $ 32,700.00
Apt. 2H: $40,038.12
Apt. 3H: $21,100.00
Apt. 3K: $30,600.00
Apt. 4B: $ 23,500.00
Apt. 4L: $ 30,800.00
28. Similarly, 45-42 41 ''Street in Queens has no pem1its related to lAis.
29. However, to justify the rent being chargedat 45-42 41 ''Street, Defendants would
have had to perform lAls in the following amounts:
Apt. ID: 26,900.00

Apt. JH: $ 18,000.00
Apt. 2B: s 38,000.00
Apt. 2D: $ 35,700.00
Apt. 3D: $ 48,300.00
Apt. 5C: $ 43,400.00
Apt. 5G: $ 54,900.00
30. While not all !Ais require a permit, upon infonnation and belief, it is highly
unlikely Defendants could have perfom1ed the IAis at 30 Seaman Avenue, or 45-42 41st Street,
or any other building in the Bronstein Pmtfo1io, in the aforementioned amounts, without a single
permit.
31. It appears that Defendants' scheme pervades the entire Bronstein Portfolio, and
that the most basic discovery will reveal Defendants widespread reliance on fraudulent,
exaggerated and/or undocumented IAls.
32. The scheme represents Defendants' blatant attempt to circumvent New York
City's rent regulation process, at the expense of tenants residing in buildings in the Bronstein
6 of 47
Pmifolio. Left unchecked, Defendants' conduct will likely force countless tenants fiom their
homes, and continue the demise of affordable rental housing in New York City.
33. First, on behalf of themselves and current tenants in the Bronstein Portfolio,
Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of rent-stabilized leases containing legal regulated rents that
reflect the lAls Defendants can actually demonstrate (if any), not the !Als Defendants have
wrongfully claimed.
34. Second, on behalf of themselves and current and fonner tenants in the Bronstein
Portfolio, Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of damages, for rent paid over and above the legal
regulated rent which Defendants were entitled to charge. as well as an award of attorneys fees
and other costs.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
309 W. 571h Street
35. Plaintiff Yen Hsang Chang resides in Apmiment 1208 at 309 W. 57'h St. m
Manhattan.
36. Apmiment 1208 was listed as a "High Rent Vacancy" and purportedly
deregulated in 2014, which would have required over $82,800 in 1Als to exceed the high rent
vacancy threshold necessary for such deregulation.
37. There is no evidence that IA!s in that amount were implemented in Apartment
1208.
38. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmiment 1208 supports the conclusion that no
such improvements were made.
7 of 47
39. Plaintiff Chang is entitled to refonnation of his lease to provide for the con-ect
legal regulated rent.
39-89 51st Street
40. Plaintiffs Ryan and Deirdre Balas reside in Apmiment 2D at 39-89 51st Street in
Queens.
41. 39-89 51st Street receives tax benefits under the J-51 tax benefits program (the ".I-
51 Program"), requiring Defendants to register Plaintifis' apartments with DHCR as rent-
stabilized.
42. From 2004 to 2010. Defendants impermissibly failed to file the legally required
registrations for these Plaintiffs' apartment with DJ-ICR. and Apartment 2D is listed as 'exempt'"
in its DJ-ICR rent history.
43. Plaintiff Ryan and Deirdre Balas are entitled to refom1ation of their lease to
provide fen the correct legal regulated rent.
43-32 47'h Street
44. Plaintiffs Clement Chan and Matthew Haensly reside in Apartment B46 at 43-32
4 7'h Street in Queens.
45. Between 2014 and 2015, the legal regulated rent for Apartment B46 was
increased by $1316.86.
46. This 141% increase would have required over $67,800.00 in IA!s to be justifiable.
47. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apmiment
B46.
48. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmiment B46 supports the conclusion that no
8 of 47
49. Plaintiffs Chan and Haensly are entitled to reformation of their lease to provide
for the correct legal regulated rent.
43-35 42"d Street
50. Plaintiff Dina Mann resides in Apartment 2B at 43-35 42"d Street in Queens.
51. 43-35 42"d Street receives tax benefits under the J-51 Program, requiring
Defendants to register Plaintiffs' apartments with DHCR as rent-stabilized.
52. From 1992 to 2012, Defendants impetmissibly failed to file the legally required
registrations for Plaintiff Mann's apartment with DHCR.
53. Plaintiff Mann is entitled to refonnation of her lease to provide for the correct
legal regulated rcnL
54. Plaintiff Scott Chapman resides in Apartment 3B at 43-35 42' 1d Street in Queens.
55. Between 20 I 2 and 20 !3, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 3B was increased
by $906.76.
56. This 73% increase would have required over $26,300.00 in lAJs to be justifiable.
57. There is no evidence that lA!s in that amount were implemented in Apartment 3B.
58. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 3B supports the conclusion that no
59. Plaintiff Chapman is entitled to refonnation of his lease to provide for the correct
45 Thayer Street
60. Plaintiffs Kenneth Hicks and Steve Cheruiyot reside 111 Apartment 4F at 45
Thayer Street in Manhattan.
9 of 47
61. Between 2015 and 2016, the legal regulated rent for Aparh11ent 4F was increased
by $983.62.
63. There is no evidence that IA!s in that amount were implemented in Apartment 4F.
64. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 4F supports the conclusion that no
65. Plaintiffs Hicks and Cheruiyot are entitled to refonnation of their lease to provide
for the COJTect legal regulated rent.
66. Plaintiff Randy Garcia resides in Apartment 5B at 45 Thayer Street in Manhattan.
67. Between 201 l and 2012, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 5B was increased
by $663.30.
68. That 87% increase would have required over $30,600.00 in lA!s to be justifiable.
69. There is no evidence that lA Is in that amount were implemented in Apartment 5B.
70. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmimcnt 5B supports the conclusion that no
71. Plaintiff Garcia is entitled to refonnation of her lease to provide for the correct
US Post Avenue
72. Plaintiff Tiffany Lee resides in Apmiment 4A at 118 Post Avenue in Manhattan.
73. Between 2012 and 2013, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 4A was increased
by $588.89.
74. This 55% increase would have required over $22,600.00 in!Ais to be justifiable.
10
10 of 47
75. There is no evidence that lAls in that amount were implemented in Apartment
4A.
76. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 4A suppmis the conclusion that no
77. Plaintiff Lee is entitled to refom1ation of her lease to provide for the cmTect legal
regulated rent.
128 Post Avenue
78. PlaintiffTaileen Joa resides in Apartment 2J at 128 Post Avenue in Manhattan.
79. Between 2015 and 2016, the legal regulated rent for Apartment SA was increased
by $781.10.
80. According to a purported rider provided to Plaintiff .loa in 2016. $492.33 of that
rental increase was due to lAls.
81. An increase in that amount would have required over $28,475.00 in !Als to be
justifiable.
82. There is no evidence that !A Is in that amount were implemented in Apartment 2.1.
83. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 2J supports the conclusion that no
84. Plaintiff Joa is entitled to refom1ation of her lease to provide tor the correct legal
regulated rent.
133 Seaman A venue
85. Plaintiff Melody Merker resides m Apmiment IE at 133 Seaman Avenue 111
Manhattan.
11
11 of 47
86. Between 2010 to 2011, the legal regulated rent for Apartment IE was increased
by $678.19.
87. This 44% increase would have required over $14,800.00 in lAls to be justifiable.
88. There is no evidence that IAls in that amount were implemented in Apmiment I E.
89. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmiment l E suppmis the conclusion that no
90. Plaintiff Merker is entitled to refonnation of her lease to provide for the conect
91. Plaintiff Gary Topp resides 111 Apmiment 3A at 133 Seaman Avenue m
Manhattan.
92. Between 201 J and 2012, the legal regulated rent for Apariment 3A was increased
by $633. J 2.
93. This 66'% increase would have required over $26,400.00 in !Als to be justifiable.
3A.
95. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 3A supports the conclusion that no
96. Plaintiff Topp is entitled to reformation of his lease to provide for the cotTect legal
regulated rent.
97. Plaintiff Kristina Bonhorst resides in Apartment 4D at 133 Seaman Avenue in
Manhattan.
98. Between 2010 to 2011, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 4D was increased
by $1 ,005.48.
12
12 of 47
99. This I 00% increase would have required over $48,200.00 in lA Is to be justifiable.
I 00. There is no evidence that IA!s in that amount were implemented in Apartment
4D.
I 01. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 4D supports the conclusion that no
I 02. Plaintiff Bonhorst is entitled to refonnation of her lease to provide for the correct
legal ret,>ulated rent.
!03. Plaintiffs Kent Haina Jr. and Andrew Keltz reside m Apmiment SA at 133
Seaman A venue in Manhattan.
104. Between 2013 ancl2014. the legal regulated rent for Apartment SA was increased
by $845.68.
105. According to a purported rider provided to Plaintiffs I-laina and Keltz in 2014.
$539.41 of that rental increase was due to lA Is.
106. An increase in that amount would have required over $32,300.00 in lA Is to be
justifiable.
I 07. There is no evidence that IAJs in that amount were implemented in Apartment
SA.
108. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmiment 5A suppmts the conclusion that no
109. Plaintiffs Haina and Keltz are entitled to retonnation of their lease to provide tor
the correct legal regulated rent.
13
13 of 47
153 Vermilyea Avenue
110. P1aintiffDarry1 Washington resides in Apmiment 3E at 153 Vennilyea Avenue in
Manhattan.
111. Between 2014 and 2015, the legal regulated rent for Apmiment 3E was increased
by $724.27.
112. According to a purpmied rider provided to Plaintiff Washington in 2015, $480.81
of that rental increase was due to lA Is.
113. An increase in that amount would have required over $19,200.00 in !Als to be
justifiable.
114. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apartment 3E.
115. To the contrary. an inspection of Apartment 3E supports the conclusion that no
116. Plaintiff Washington 1s entitled to refom1ation of his lease to provide for the
correct legal regulated rent.
117. Plaintiff Megan Hagar resides 111 Apartment 3F at 153 Vennilyea Avenue in
Manhattan.
118. Between 2009 and 2010, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 3F was increased
by $608.72.
119. This 75% increase would have required over $17,830.00 in lA Is to be justifiable.
120. There is no evidence that lA Is in that amount were implemented in Apmiment 3F.
121. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmiment 3F supports the conclusion that no
14
14 of 47
122. Plaintiff Hagar is entitled to reformation of her lease to provide for the correct
20 Seaman Avenue
123. Plaintiff Shirley Ovid Mitchell resides in Apm1ment 60 at 20 Seaman A venue in
Manhattan.
124. Between 2013 and 2014, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 60 was increased
by$819.51.
126. There is no evidence that IA Is in that amount were implemented in Apmiment
60.
127. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 60 supports the conclusion that no
128. Plaintiff Mitchell is entitled to refom1ation of her lease to provide f()r the coJTect
129. Plaintiffs Cynthia Lowe and Daniel Loria reside in Apartment 6E at 20 Seaman
A venue in Manhattan.
130. Between 2013 and 2014, the legal regulated rent for Apm1ment 6E was increased
by $798.82.
132. There is no evidence that !Ais in that amount were implemented in Apartment 6E.
133. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 6E supports the conclusion that no
15
15 of 47
134. Plaintiffs Lowe and Loria are entitled to refonnation of their lease to provide for
the correct legal regulated rent.
30 Seaman A venue
135. Plaintiff Nicole Cocchiaro resides in Apartment !B at 30 Seaman Avenue 111
Manhattan.
136. Between 2010 and 2011, the legal ret,'lllated rent for Apartment IB was increased
by $841.32.
137. This 60% increase would have required over $22,400.00 in !Als to be justifiable.
138. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apartment I B.
139. To the contrary, an inspection of Apa1iment 1B supports the conclusion that no
140. PlaintiffCocchiaro is entitled to reformation of her lease to provide f()r the correct
141. Plaintiff Ann Votaw resides in Aparh11ent IE at 30 Seaman Avenue in Manhattan.
142. Between 201 0 and 2011, the legal regulated rent for Apmimcnt IE was increased
by $681.47.
143. This 73% increase would have required over $19,700.00 in !Ais to be justifiable.
144. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apartment iE.
145. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmiment IE supports the conclusion that no
146. Plaintiff Votaw is entitled to refonnation of her lease to provide for the conect
16
16 of 47
147. Plaintiff Salvatore Russo resides 111 Apartment JL at 30 Seaman Avenue 111
Manhattan.
148. Between 2012 and 2013, the legal regulated rent for Apartment lL was increased
by $681.95.
149. This I 00% increase would have required over $32,700.00 in IAis to be justifiable.
150. There is no evidence that IAis in that amount were implemented in Apartment I L.
151. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment I L supports the conclusion that no
152. Plaintiff Russo is entitled to reformation of his lease to provide for the conect
153. Plaintiff Elizabeth Bouk resides in Apartment 2H at 30 Seaman Avenue in
Manhattan.
154. Between 2016 and 2017, the legal regulated rent t(Jr Apartment 2H was increased
by $845.68.
155. According to a rider provided to Plaintiff Bouk in 2017, $667.30 of that rental
increase was due to $40,038.12 in !Als.
156. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apatiment
~"
Ln.
157. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 2H suppmis the conclusion that no
158. Plaintiff Bouk is entitled to refom1ation of her lease to provide for the conect
legal regnlated rent.
17
17 of 47
159. Plaintiff Netania Budofsky resides m Apartment 3H at 30 Seaman Avenue in
Manhattan.
160. Between 2013 and 2014, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 3H was increased
by $683.90.
162. There is no evidence that IA!s in that amount were implemented in Apatiment 3H
163. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 3H supports the conclusion that no
164. Plaintiff Budofsky is entitled to ref(m11ation of her lease to provide for the correct
165. Plaintiff .Jessica Goldhirsh resides in Apartment 3K at 30 Seaman Avenue in
Manhattan.
166. Between 2010 and 2011, the legal regulated rent lor Apartment 3K was increased
by $708.77.
3K.
169. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 3K supports the conclusion that no
170. Plaintiff Goldhirsh is entitled to reformation of her lease to provide for the correct
171. Plaintiffs Joseph Ostwald and Andrew O'Brien reside 111 Apartment 48 at 30
Seaman Avenue in Manhattan.
18
18 of 47
172. Between 2013 and 2014, the legal regulated rent for Apmiment 4B was increased
by $851.41.
174. There is no evidence that !Ais in that amount were implemented in Apartment 4B.
176. Plaintiffs Ostwald and O'Brien are entitled to reformation of their lease to provide
177. Plaintiff Laura Piraino resided m Apartment 4L at 30 Seaman Avenue in
Manhattan.
178. Between 20 I 4 and 2015, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 4L was increased
by $781.25.
179. This 76%, increase would have required over S30,800.00 in !Als to be justifiable.
180. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apmimcnt 4L.
181. To the contrary, an inspection of Apa1iment 4 L supports the conclusion that no
624 W. 1761h Street
182. Plaintiff Timothy Barker resides in Apartment i2A at 624 W. 176'h Street in
Manhattan.
183. Between 2012 and 2013, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 12A was
increased by $624.45.
19
19 of 47
185. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apmiment
12A.
186. To the contrary, a11 inspection of Apartment 12A suppmis the conclusion that no
187. Plaintiff Barker is entitled to refonnation of his lease to provide for the correct
188. Plaintiff Barker is entitled to refonnation of his lease to provide for the correct
39-89 51st Street
189. Plaintiffs .Jonathan Leung and Luke Van Dee Veer reside in Apartment J A at 39-
89 5 J st Street in Queens.
J 90. Between 2014 and 2015, the legal regulated rent for A partmcnt J A was increased
by $78 J .25.
J 91. This 76% increase would have required over $30,800.00 in !Als to be justifiable.
192. There is no evidence that IA!s in that amount were implemented in Apmiment
lA.
193. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment l A suppmis the conclusion that no
194. Plaintiffs Leung and Van Der Veer are entitled to refonnation of their lease to
provide for the correct legal regulated rent.
42-09 47'h A venue
195. Plaintiffs Joseph and Adrienne Riccardi reside 111 Apmiment 6F at 42-09 47th
A venue in Queens.
20
20 of 47
196. Apartment 6F was purportedly decontrolled in 2009, and the first rent stabilized
lease had a legal regulated rent of$2165.17.
197. However, the first rent-stabilized tenant was provided with a lease containing a
preferential rent of $1, 700.00, and all future rent increases were required to be based upon that
figure, but were not.
198. Plaintiffs Joseph and Adrienne Riccardi are entitled to refonnation of their lease
to provide for the cmTect legal regulated rent.
43-09 40 111 Street
199. Plaintiff Henry Nicponski resides in Apartment 2D at 43-09 40'h Street in Queens.
200. Between 2010 and 2011, tbe legal regulated rent for Apartment 2D was increased
by $543.68.
20 I. This 44'% increase would have required overS 12,400.00 in lA!s to be justifiable.
2D.
203. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 2D supports the conclusion that no
204. Plaintiff Nicponski is entitled to refm111ation of his lease to provide for the conect
43-17 48' 11 Street
205. Plaintiff Ryan Clapp resides in Apartment 4A at 43-17 48'h Street in Queens.
206. Defendants' building at 43-17 48' 11 Street receives tax benefits under the J-51
Program, requiring Defendants to register Plaintiffs' apartments with DHCR as rent-stabilized.
207. Defendants failed to register Apartment 4A between 2005 and 2011.
21
21 of 47
208. Between 2005 and 2011 the legal regulated rent for Apartment 4A was increased
by $1749.79.
209. This 98% increase would have required over $55,700.00 in !A Is to be justifiable.
210. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apartment 4A
211. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmiment 4A supports the conclusion that no
212. Plaintiff Clapp is entitled to refom1ation of his lease to provide for the correct
43-39 42"'1 Street
213. Plaintiff Mohammad Islam resides in Apartment 2A at 43-39 42"d Street in
Queens.
214. Apartment 2A was listed as a '"High Rent Vacancy and purportedly deregulated
in 2008, which would have required over $32,300.00 in lA!s to exceed the high rent vacancy
threshold necessary tor such deregulation.
2A.
216. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 2A suppmis the conclusion that no
217. Plaintiff Islam is entitled to refom1ation of his lease to provide for the correct
45-42 41" Street
218. PlaintiffLukasz Janik resides in Apmiment ID at 45-42 41st Street in Queens.
22
22 of 47
219. Between 2009 and 2010 the legal regulated rent for Apartment ID was increased
by $1 ,034.33.
220. This 58% increase would have required over $26,900.00 in IAis to be justifiable.
ID.
222. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment I D supports the conclusion that no
223. Plaintiff Janik is entitled to reformation of his lease to provide for the conect legal
regulated rent.
224. Plaintiffs Yolanda Nunley and Michael Albertson reside in Apmiment I H at 45-
42 4]'st Street m

Queens.
225. Between 20 I 0 and 20 II, the legal regulated rent tlw Apartment I H was increased
by $720.09.
227. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apartment
!H.
228. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment I H supports the conclusion that no
229. Plaintiffs Nunley and Albertson are entitled to reformation of their lease to
230. Plaintiffs Adina Wolf and Jonathan O'Grady reside in Apmiment 2B at 45-42 41st
Street in Queens.
23
23 of 47
231. Between 2013 and 2014, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 2B was increased
by $938.98.
233. There is no evidence that lA Is in that amount were implemented in Apmiment 2B.
234. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmiment 2B supports the conclusion that no
235. Plaintiffs Wolf and O'Grady are entitled to refonnation of their lease to provide
for the cmrect legal regulated rent.
236. Plaintiff David Isaacs resides in Apartment 2D at 45-42 41 51 Street in Queens.
237. Between 2011 and 2012, the legal regulated rent for Apmiment 2D was increased
by $829.62.
239. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apartment
2D.
241. Plaintiff Isaacs is entitled to refonnation of his lease to provide for the correct
legal ret,'lllated rent.
242. Plaintiffs Stephen Macioch and Isabella Cardona reside in Apartment 3D at 45-42
41 51 Street in Queens.
243. Between 2016 and 2017, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 3D was increased
by $1,037.60.
24
24 of 47
3D.
247. Plaintiffs Macioch and Cardona are entitled to refom1ation of their lease to
248. Plaintiff Michael Wilke resides in Apartment 5C at 45-42 41 '' Street in Queens.
249. Between 2010 and 2011, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 5C was increased
by $1289.21.
250. This 128% increase would have required over $43,400.00 in lAis to be justitiable.
251. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apartment 5C.
252. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment SC supports the conclusion that no
253. Plaintiff Wilke is entitled to reformation of his lease to provide for the correct
254. Plaintitf Shuchin Shukla resides in Apartment 5G at 45-42 41 ''Street in Queens.
255. Defendants building at 45-42 41' 1 Street receives tax benefits under the J-51
Program, requiring Defendants to register Plaint ills' apartments with DHCR as rent-stabilized.
256. Defendants failed to register Apartment 5G between 2007 and 20 l 0.
257. Between 2007 and 2010 the legal regulated rent for Apartment 5G was increased
by $1 ,674.63.
258. This Ill% increase would have required over $54,900.00 in IA!s to be justifiable.
25
25 of 47
259. There is no evidence that IAis in that amount were implemented in Apartment
5G.
260. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 5G suppmis the conclusion that no
261. Plaintiff Shukla is entitled to reformation of his lease to provide for the con-ect
47-07 41 '' Street
262. Plaintiffs Jen Watson and Ken-y McFate reside in Apmiment lB at 47-07 41' 1
Street in Queens.
263. Between 2016 and 2017, the legal regulated rent fi.1r Apm1ment IB was increased
by $1 ,379.28.
264. According to a rider provided to Plaintiffs Watson and McFate in 2016, $735.84
of that rental increase was due to $44,150.55 in lAls.
265. There is no evidence that lAls in that amount were implemented in Apartment 1B.
267. Plaintiff Watson and McFate are entitled to refonnation of their lease to provide
for the conect legal regulated rent.
268. Plaintiffs Desiree and Jonathan Grenay reside in Apmiment 4F at 47-07 41st Street
in Queens.
269. Between 2010 and 2011, the legal regulated rent tor Apartment 4F was increased
by $775.62.
270. This 65% increase would have required over $21,500.00 in IAls to be justifiable.
26
26 of 47
271. There is no evidence that lAJs in that amount were implemented in Apmiment 4F.
272. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 4F suppotis the conclusion that no
273. Plaintiff Desiree and Jonathan Grenay are entitled to refom1ation of their lease to
274. Plaintiff Timothy Moran resides in Apmiment 6B at 47-07 41" Street in Queens.
by $1416.26.
276. This 108% increase would have required over $46.100.00 in IA!s to be justifiable.
277. There is no evidence that JAls in that amount were implemented in Apmiment 6B.
278. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmiment 6B supports the conclusion that no
279. Plaintiff Moran is entitled to reformation of his lease to provide tor the correct
47-21 41" Street
280. Plaintiff Lome Heilbronn resides in Apartment 2K at 47-21 41" Street in Queens.
281. Between 2010 and 2011, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 2K was increased
by $818.02.
283. There is no evidence that IA!s in that amount were implemented in Apmiment
2K.
284. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmiment 2K supports the conclusion that no
27
27 of 47
285. Plaintiff Heilbronn is entitled to refonnation of his lease to provide for the correct
286. Plaintiff J.L. Duffy resides in Apartment 4G at 47-21 41st Street in Queens.
287. Between 2013 and 2014, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 4G was increased
by $1,113.24.
288. This 55% increase would have required over $42,600.00 in !A is to be justifiable.
289. There is no evidence that IA!s in that amount were implemented in Apatiment
4G.
290. To the contrary, an inspection of Apatiment 4G supports the conclusion that no
291. Plaintiff Duffy is entitled to reformation of her lease to provide f(Jr the correct
292. Plaintiff Phyllis Hirshorn resides in Apmiment 4K at 47-21 41' 1 Street in Queens.
293. Between 2009 and 20 I 0, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 4K was increased
by Sl ,021.53.
295. There is no evidence that !Ais in that amount were implemented in Apartment
4K.
296. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 4K supports the conclusion that no
297. Plaintiff Hirshorn is entitled to reformation of her lease to provide for the correct
28
28 of 47
298. Plaintiffs Hans and Katherine Kluefer reside in Apmiment 6C at 47-21 41st Street
in Queens.
299. Between 2007 and 2009, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 6C was increased
by$1,357.18. 3
301. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apartment 6C.
302. To the contrary, an inspection of Apaiiment 6C supports the conclusion that no
303. Plaintiffs Hans and Katherine Kluefer are entitled to reformation of their lease to
provide f(w the correct legal regulated rent.
514 W. 213 1h Street
304. Plaintiff Joseph Cracco resides in Apartment 5E at 514 W. 213 1h Street in
Manhattan.
305. Between 2012 and 2013, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 5E was increased
by $552.41.
307. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apartment 5E.
308. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 5E supports the conclusion that no
309. Plaintiff Cracco is entitled to refom1ation of his lease to provide for the correct
3
Defendants failed to register Apartment SB between 2007 and 2009, although required to do so, because 47-21 41"
Street \vas receiving J-51 tax benefits at the time.
29
29 of 47
55 Payson A venue
310. Plaintiff David Walker resides m Apartment lJ at 55 Payson Avenue m
Manhattan.
311. Between 2015 and 2016, the legal regulated rent for Apartment lJ was increased
by $743.98.
313. There is no evidence that IA!s in that amount were implemented in Apatiment I J.
314. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 1J supports the conclusion that no
315. PlaintitT Walker is entilled to refom1ation of his lease to provide for the correct
316. Plaintiff Florence La Gamma resides in Apartment 40 at 55 Payson Avenue in
Manhattan.
317. Apartment 40 was purportedly decontrolled in 2009, and the first rent stabilized
lease had a legal regulated rent of$2,356.69.
318. However, the first rent-stabilized tenant was provided with a lease containing a
preferential rent of $1 ,950.00, and all future rent increases were required to be based upon that
fit,>ure, but was not.
319. Plaintiff LaGamma rs entitled to reformation of her lease to provide for the
correct legal regulated rent.
320. Plaintiff Mary Levitt resides in Apartment 61 at 55 Payson Avenue in Manhattan.
321. Between 2015 and 2016, the legal regulated rent for Apartment 61 was increased
by $655.09.
30
30 of 47
323. There is no evidence that lAis in that amount were implemented in Apartment 61.
324. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 61 supports the conclusion that no
325. Plaintiff Levitt is entitled to refonnation of her lease to provide for the conect
555 W. 170'11 Street
326. Plaintiffs Marissa Koeller and Gabriella Garcia reside] in Apartment 63 at 555
W. 170'11 Street in Manhattan.
327. Between 2008 and 2009, the legal regulated rent f(w Apartment 63 was increased
by $579.71.
329. There is no evidence that !Als in that amount were implemented in Apariment 63.
330. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmiment 63 supports the conclusion that no
331. Plaintiffs Koeller and Garcia are entitled to reformation of their lease to provide
617 W. 190'" Street
332. Plaintiff Carolina Botero resides 111 Apartment 4C at 617 W. 190'h Street 111
Manhattan.
333. Between 2011 and 2012, the legal reh'lllated rent for Apartment 4C was increased
by $697.94.
334. This 107% increase would have required over $34,000.00 in IAis to be justifiable.
31
31 of 47
335. There is no evidence that IAls in that amount were implemented in Apartment 4C.
336. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 4C supports the conclusion that no
337. Plaintiff Botero is entitled to refom1ation of her lease to provide for the correct
655 W. 177111 Street
338. Plaintiff Adeola Role resides 111 Apartment 3B at 655 W. 177111 Street 111
Manhattan.
by $697.94.
341. There is no evidence that !A Is in that amount were implemented in Apartment 3B.
342. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 3B suppm1s the conclusion that no
343. Plaintiff Role is entitled to reformation of her lease to provide f(x the correct legal
regulated rent.
Defendants
344. Defendant Bronstein Properiies LLC is a c01110ration with its principal place of
business in New York City.
345. Upon infonnation and belief, Bronstein Properi.ies LLC is the indirect owner and
operator of the buildings that make up the Bronstein Portfolio.
346. Upon information and belief, Bronstein Properties LLC conducts and transacts
business in the City, County, and State of New York.
32
32 of 47
34 7. Defendant Barry Rudofsky is the owner, operator, and principal of Bronstein
Properties LLC.
348. Upon information and belief, Defendant Barry Rudofsky conducts and transacts
business in the City, County, and State of New York.
THE APPLICABLE STATUTORY AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
The RSL and RSC
349. Over a million New York City housing units are subject to some fmm of rent
regulation.
Rent Stabilization
350. In 1969, citing a continuing shortage of residential rental housing. the New York
City Council enacted its rent stabilization statute . the RSL, N.Y. Unconsol. Law ~ 26-501
(McKinney).
351. Thereafter, the New York City Council gave DHCR authority to promulgate
regulations in tiuiherance of the RSL. DHCR did so by establishing the RSC, N.Y. Comp.
Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 9, 2520.1, et seq.
352. The RSL and RSC limit the rent that landlords can charge and circumscribe a
landlords ability to raise rents, cover the cost of improvements. and deregulate apartments.
353. The rent that a landlord can charge for a regulated unit is based on an initial legal
rent.
354. The initial legal rent is based on the rent the previous tenant paid.
355. Landlords of rent-stabilized apartments may be entitled to increase rents:
a. when pennitted by the RGB;
b. following a DHCR approved Major Capital Improvement ("MCl");
33
33 of 47
c. an increase following a vacancy; and/or
d. after the perfonnance of !Ais that are properly supported by
documentation, and made either during the vacancy of an apartment or
agreed upon by the tenant.
RGB Rental Increases
356. In New York City, the RGB sets the maximum rates for rent increases once a year
that are effective for leases commencing on or after October I st of each year through September
30th of the following year. RSC 2522.4.
357. The RGB increases announced in 2015 and 2016 were each 0% for one-year
leases, and 2% t(Jr two-year leases.
358. The RGB increase announced in 2017 was 1.25%, for one-year leases, and 2% for
two-year leases.
M(1 Rental Increases
359. When a landlord perfonns an MCJ, the landlord is entitled to collect from each
rent-regulated tenant a rental increase.
360. The MCI increase is allocated on a per-room basis, and is required to be approved
by the DHCR. RSC 2522.4(2).
361. A landlord who perfonns an MCI on a residential apartment building subject to
rent regulation is pennitted to adjust the rent of rent regulated apartments in the building based
on the actual, verified, cost of the improvements. !d.
362. An MCI cannot be an ordinary repair but must be work perfonned for the
operation, preservation, and maintenance of the building. I d.
363. An MCI must benefit all tenants of the building. ld.
34
34 of 47
364. MCI increases are equal to ]/60th of the cost of the work performed (including
installation but excluding finance charges), divided by the number of rooms in the building,
charged per-apartment and based on the number of rooms. !d.
Vacancy Rental Increases
365. Subject to certain statutorily-defined adjustments, upon any vacancy in a rent-
stabilized apartment, a landlord is pe1mitted to increase the rent amount by 20%. RSC 2522.8.
/AI Rental Increases
366. A landlord is entitled to secure rent increases based on a substantial modification
or enlargement of a dwelling space, and/or upon provision of additional services, improvements,
equipment, furniture, or furnishings to a rent-stabilized apartment. RSC ~ 2522.4(a).
367. If a tenant occupies an apartment for which an JAJ rental increase is sought, the
landlord must get the tenant's written consem for the !Al rental increase. RSC 2522.4(a) (1).
368. Ordinary maintenance and repairs do not qualify for lA J rental increases. I d.
369. In a building with 35 or fewer units, a landlord may add to a rent-stabilized
tenant's rent the equivalent of l/40th of the cost of the new service or equipment (including
installation costs, but not tinance charges). !d.
370. In a building with 36 or more units, a landlord may add to a rent-stabilized
tenant's rent the equivalent of 1/60th of the cost of the ne\V service or equip1nent (including
installation costs, but not finance charges). !d.
3 71. If a tenant challenges any !A is, landlords of rent regulated buildings are required
to demonstrate that the cost of the improvements is suppmied by adequate documentation.
35
35 of 47
Decontrol of Rent Controlled Apartments
372. Rent control limits the rent an owner may charge for an apartment, and restricts
the right of an owner to evict tenants. RSC 2525.1.
373. When a tenant moves out of a rent controlled apartment, the apartment becomes
decontrolled. 9 NYCRR 2200.2(f) (17).
374. If the decontrolled apmiment is in a building built before January 1, 1974, and is
111 a building containing six or more units, the apatiment becomes rent-stabilized, unless the
apartment was above the then existing Deregulation Rent Threshold. RSC 2520.11
375. The owner must register the unit with DHCR by completing an Initial Apatiment
Registration, and must provide a copy to the first rent-stabilized tenant a copy by certified mail.
RSC 0 2528.2
376. The owner may charge the tirst rent-stabilized tenant a rent negotiated between
them, which is to be a fair market rent. RSC 2521.1 (a) ( l ).
The J-51 Program
377. In 1955, the New York State Legislature enacted Real Property Tax Law
("RPTL'') 489, which authorized cities to promulgate local laws that would provide multiple
dwelling owners with tax incentives to rehabilitate their properties or con veri them to residential
use.
378. Pursuant to the 1955 Legislative Annual, the purpose of the J-51 Program was to
"'provide decent safe and sanitary homes for lower income families.'' NY Legis. Ann., 1955, at
267-268.
36
36 of 47
379. After the enactment of RPTL 489, the City of New York adopted
Administrative Code 151-2.5 4 (now Administrative Code 11-243) as an incentive to reward
residential major capital improvement, moderate rehabilitation and conversion projects with real
prope1iy tax exemption and abatement benefits for certain enumerated projects.
380. As a condition to receiving benefits pursuant to the J-51 Program, a building
owner must provide its tenants with the protections of the rent stabilization laws, including
annual registrations with DHCR.
DEFENDANTS' FRAUDULENT SCHEME

TO VIOLATE THE RENT STABILIZATION LAWS
381. Upon infom1ation and belief. Bronstein, under the direction of Defendant
Ruclofsky, knowingly and willfully failed to comply with the requirements of the RSL and RSC.
382. Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to register apartments
as required. and offering preferential rents to the first tenant following decontrol of a rent-
stabilized apartments.
383. Most egregious of all, however, Defendants have engaged in a pattern and
practice of using false infonnation to increase rents and/or deregulate apmiments that should
remain rent stabilized.
384. In pmiicular, Defendants have claimed to have perfonned lAls sufficient to justify
rent spikes ranging from 50% to 141%.
385. Plaintiffs' inspection of their apartments leads to the conclusion that the work
necessary to justify these rent spikes was never perfom1ed.
4
The J-51 Program is the successor to former J-41-2.4 of the Administrative Code. Thereafter, it \Vas
renumbered as J51-2.5.
37
37 of 47
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
The Class and Sub-Class
386. This action may be properly maintained as a class action under the provisions of
Article 9 of the CPLR.
387. The proposed Class consists of current and former tenants of the Bronstein
Portfolio, who, between July 25, 2013, and the present date, resided 111 rent-stabilized or
unlawfully-deregulated apartments, and who paid rent in excess of the legal limit based on
misrepresentations by Defendants, or any predecessor in interest, conceming legal regulated
rents and improvements (the "Class'}
388. The Class seeks certification of claims for damages.
389. In addition, Plaintiffs propose a Sub-Class consisting of all current tenants in the
Bronstein, who currently reside in a rent-stabilized apartment or unlawthlly deregulated
apmiment (the "Sub-Class'').
390. The Sub-Class seeks certification of claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as
described more fully below.
Class and Sub-Class Meet Requirements for Certification
391. The Class and Sub-Class are so numerous that joinder of all members rs
i1npracticable.
392. Although the exact number and identities of the members of the Class and Sub-
Class are currently unknown to Plaintiffs, it is reasonable to conclude that the practices
complained of herein affect hundreds, if not thousands, of current and fmmer tenants in the
Bronstein Portfolio.
38
38 of 47
393. The claims of the representative Plaintiffs are common to and typical of the
claims of each member of the Class and Sub-Class. They, like all other members of the Class
and Sub-Class, sustained damages arising Jimn Defendant's rent overcharges.
394. The representative Plaintiffs and the members of the Class were and are similarly
or identically harmed by the same unlawful, deceptive, unfair, systematic, and pervasive pattem
of misconduct.
395. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the
interests of the Class and Sub-Class.
396. There are no material cont1icts between the claims of the representative Plaintiffs
and the members of the Class and Sub-Class that would make class certification inappropriate.
397. The counsel selected to represent the Class and Sub-Class will fairly and
adequately protect the interest of the Class and Sub-Class, and they are lawyers who have
expcnence in class and complex litigation and are competent counsel for this class action
litigation.
398. Counsel for the Class and Sub-Class will vigorously assert the claims of all
members of the Class and Sub-Class.
399. This action is properly maintained as a class action in that common questions of
law and fact exist as to the members of the Class and Sub-Class and predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication ofthe controversy, including consideration of:
a. the interests of the members of the Class and Sub-Class in individually

controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
b. the impracticability or inefficiency of prosecuting or defending separate

actions;
39
39 of 47
c. the extent and nature of any litigation conceming the controversy already
commenced by or against members of the Class and Sub-Class;
d. the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the

claims in the particular f01um; and
e. the difficulties likely to be encountered m the management of a class

action.
400. Among the numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class and Sub-
Class are:
a. whether the Defendants act or refuse to act on grounds generally

applicable to the Plaintiffs, the Class,
b. whether the Defendants have engaged in a pattern, practice, or policy of

misrepresenting legal regulated rents;
c. whether the Defendants have engaged in a pattern, practice, or policy of

misrepresenting tenants' rent stabilization status:
d. whether the Defendants have engaged in a pattern, practice, or policy of

unlawfully deregulating apmimcnts;
e. whether Defendants have engaged in a pattern, practice, or policy of

misrepresenting the amounts of !Als perfonned on individual apartments;
f whether Defendants have engaged in a pattern, practice, or policy of

overcharging rent;
g. whether DeJendants' practices, acts, communications. and representations

constitute deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of business, trade, and
commerce, and/or in the furnishing of services in violation of GBL 349;
h. whether Defendants' practices, acts, and conduct violate the RSL and
RSC;
L to what extent Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to damages;
and
J. to what extent Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are entitled to

injunctive relief.
40
40 of 47
COUNT ONE
VIOLATION OF RSL 26-512
(on behalf of the Class)
401. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in~~ I thru 400 of
this complaint.
402. At all times relevant hereto, apartments of Plaintiffs and the members of the Class
were subject to the provision of the RSL.
403. Defendants, either directly or indirectly, charged Plaintiffs and members of the
Class market rate rents or rents at rates otherwise in excess of the legal regulated rent for their
apartments.
404. Defendants. either directly or indirectly. overcharged Plaintitis and the members
of the Class an amount equal to the difference between their monthly rents and the appropriate
legal regulated rent-stabilized rents.
405. Defendants did so by:
a. altering and misrepresenting the legal regulated rent records provided to tenants to
justify charging higher initial rents;
b. inflating and/or misrepresenting the amount of lA Is that were completed; and/or
c. using such false infom1ation to increase rents and/or dere~o,>ulate apartments that
should remain rent stabilized.
406. Upon infom1ation and belief, at all relevant times, the rent overcharges by
Defendants were willful.
407. As desc1ibed above, and upon information and belief Defendants' conduct was
willful and designed to remove the apmiments of Plaintiffs and members of the Class from the
protections of rent stabilization.
41
41 of 47
408. Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to recover monetary damages
from Defendants based on the unlawful overcharges, as well as an award of interest thereon.
COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF RSL 26-512
(on behalf of the Sub-Class)
409. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in~~ l thru 400 of
this complaint.
41 0. A justiciable controversy exists between the parties in that, among other things,
Plaintiffs and the members of the Sub-Class allege that their respective apartments are subject to
rent stabilization coverage, pursuant to the RSL.
411. Defendants. either directly or indirectly, entered into leases with Plaintiffs and the
members of the Sub-Class, which incorrectly, falsely, and illegally misrepresented the amount of
rent Defendants and/or the entities controlled by Defendants, were legally enti!led to collect
and/or falsely represented that their apmiments were not subject to rent stabilization.
412. As described above, and upon information and belief. Defendants' conduct was
willful and designed to remove the apartments of Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class from
the protections of rent stabilization.
413. A justiciable controversy exists in that, upon information and belief, Defendants'
dispute that the apmiments of Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are subject to rent
stabilization under the RSL and RSC.
414. Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class lack an adequate remedy at law.
415. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are entitled
to a declaratory jud~o,'lnent adjudging and detennining:
a. the apatiments of Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are each subject
to the RSL and RSC;
42
42 of 47
b. Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are each entitled to a rent-

stabilized lease in a fonn promulgated by the DHCR;
c. the amonnt of the legal re!,'Ulated rent for the apartments of Plaintiffs and
members of the Sub-Class;
d. any leases offered by Defendants to Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-

Class are invalid and unlawful unless they are offered on lease fonns and
tenns prescribed by DHCR; and
e. Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are not required to pay any rent
increases unless and until legally pennissible rent-stabilized lease offers
are made to, and accepted by, said Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-
Class.
416. Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are entitled to reformation of their leases
to provide that their units were and are, in fact, subject to rent stabilization.
417. Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are entitled to ref(mnation of their leases
to represent accurately the amount of rent Defendants are legally entitled to charge Plaintiffs and
members of the Sub-Class.
COUNT THREE
DE CLARA TORY RELIEF
(on beha(f"ofthe Sub-Class)
418. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in,[~ 1 thru 400 of
this complaint.
419. A justiciable controversy exists between the parties in that, among other things,
Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class allege that their respective apatiments are subject to rent
stabilization coverage.
420. Notwithstanding the clear requirements of the RSL and RSC, Defendants have
not provided Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class with rent-stabilized leases and/or rent-
stabilized leases in the correct amount, as required by law.
43
43 of 47
421. Moreover, as set forth in more detail above, and upon infom1ation and belief,
Defendants' conduct was willful and designed to remove the apartments of Plaintiffs and
members of the Sub-Class from the protections of rent stabilization.
422. Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class lack an adequate remedy at law.
423. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are entitled
to a declaratory judgment adjudging and determining:
a. the apartments of Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class members are

subject to the RSL and RSC and any purpm1ed dere~o>ulation by
Defendants was invalid as a matter oflaw:
b. Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are each entitled to a rent-

stabilized lease in a lease fcxm promulgated by Dl-lCR;
c. the amount of the legal regulated rent for the apartments of Plaintiffs and
members of the Sub-Class;
d. any leases offered by Defendants to Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-

Class are invalid and unlawful unless they are offered on lease fonns and
terms prescribed by DHCR: and
e. Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are not required to pay any rent
increases unless and until legally permissible rent-stabilized lease offers
are made to, and accepted by, said Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-
Class.
COUNT FOUR
VIOLATION OF GBL 349
(on behalf of the Class)
424. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in ,1,11 tluu 400 of
this complaint.
425. Defendants have engaged and continue to engage m deceptive consumer-
orientated acts and practices by subjecting rent-stabilized tenants, including Plaintiffs and
members of the Class, to demands for rent above tl1at permitted under law based upon its
44
44 of 47
misrepresentations oflegal ret,'Ulated rents and performed lAls that were not made or insufficient
to justify the dramatic rent increases charged, for the purposes of illegal commercial gain.
426. Defendants' deceptive acts and practices are misleading to a reasonable consumer
in a material way.
427. Plaintiffs and members of the Class have suffered 111Jury as a result of
Defendants' deceptive consumer-orientated acts and practices.
428. Defendants' deceptive acts and practices have had a broad impact on consumers
at large and cause injury and hann to the public interest.
429. Defendants' practices. acts. communications. and representations violate GBL ~
349. because they constitute deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of business, trade, and
commerce. and/or in the fi.trnishing of services.
430. Plaintiffs and members of the Class arc entitled to recover monetary damages
fi"om Defendants based on the violations of GBL 349 described herein, as well as an award of
interest thereon and attorneys' fees.
COUNT FIVE
ILLEGALITY AND MISTAKE OF CONTRACT
(on behalf4"the Class)
431. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in ,1,11 thru 400 of
this complaint.
432. Defendants, either directly or indirectly, entered into leases which incorrectly,
falsely, and illegally misrepresented the amount of rent Defendants and/or the entities controlled
by Defendants were legally entitled to collect.
433. Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to recover monetary damages
from Defendants based npon Defendants' illegal, false. and/or mistaken provisions in their
45
45 of 47
leases, in an amount to be detennined at a hearing or trial, together with an award of interest
thereon.
COUNT SIX
ILLEGALITY AND MISTAKE OF CONTRACT
(on beha(f of the Sub-Class)
434. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in ,],]1 thru 400 of
this complaint.
435. Defendants, either directly or indirectly, entered into leases which inconectly,
falsely, and illegally misrepresented the amount of rent Defendants and/or the entities controlled
by Defendants were legally entitled to collect.
436. Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are entitled to reformation of their leases
to provide that their units were and are, in fact, subject to rent stabilization.
43 7. Plaintifls and members of the Sub-Class are entitled to ref(Jrmation of their leases
to represent accurately the amount of rent Defendants are legally entitled to charge Plaintiffs and
members of the Sub-Class.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, and for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs pray to this Comi tor the
following relief:
A. Certifying the Class and Sub-Class proposed by Plaintiffs, appointing the
Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and Sub-Class; and appointing PlaintiJTs'
counsel as Class Counsel for the Class and Sub-Class;
B. Appropriate money damages against Defendants resulting from their violation of
the RSL and RSC;
46
46 of 47
C. Because Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class have no adequate remedy at law
for Defendants' ongoing violations of the RSL and RSC, against Defendants for
injunctive relief to undertake all appropriate and corrective remedial measures,
including, but not limited to, appointing an independent individual or entity to
audit and undertake an accounting of every rent-stabilized and deregulated
apmiment in the Bronstein Portfolio, a11d refonning leases to comply with the
RSL and RSC where necessary;
D. Temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enJ0111111g Defendants from
continuing to violate the RSL and RSC;
E. An order that Defendants have violated GBL I) 349 and providing appropriate
relief, including attorneys' fees:
F. Against Defendants fur disgorgement of profits from fees earned as a direct and
proximate result of rent overcharges;
G. Against Defendants for judgment in the amount of PlaintifTs' attorneys' fees.
costs and disbursements in an amount to be detennined at a hearing or trial; and
1-1. Granting such other and further relief as this Comi deems just and proper.
DATED: New York, New York

July 25, 2017
NEWI)1AN FERRARA LLP
//______ _
~/- / / --.;,
fl~Y.:: / . ~ --------- .
Lucas A. Ferrara
.Janed I. Kassenoff
Roger A. Sachar Jr. pro hac pending
1250 Broadway, 271h Floor
New York, New York 10001
(212) 619-5400
Iferrara({Ili]fl.l.R. com
jkas~enoff{dnf1lp.com
~:,sa char({l/n fll.P. com
47
47 of 47

Complaint 7-25-17 (Stamped)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Complaint 7-25-17 (Stamped)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2017 01:00 PM INDEX NO.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

BRONSTEIN PROPERTIES, LLC and BARRY

Bronstein Properiies LLC and Barry Rudofsky (collectively "Defendants").

upon infonnation and belief as to all other matters.

in the City and State of New York (the "Bronstein Portfolio").

2. In sum, Bronstein Properties LLC ("Bronstein"), under the direction of Defendant

rent -stabilized apmiments for J(JUr primary reasons.

if there is a vacancy in the apartment.

require that tenants be infonned before any MCI increase is taken.

an Individual Apmiment Improvement ("!AI'').

apartments or more) of the cost of an I AI, per month.

10. lAls typically take place when an apartment is vacant.

the lack of transparency and oversight.

16. As an example of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff Clement Chan and Matthew

occupy the apartment.

$67,800.00 in IA!s during the unit's vacancy. 1

unperfonned or over-exaggerated IAis.

required $82,800.00 in IAls.

Department of Buildings (''DOB'') work permit requests.

would have had to perfonnlAls in the following amounts:

Apt. JB: $22,400.00

28. Similarly, 45-42 41 ''Street in Queens has no pem1its related to lAis.

have had to perform lAls in the following amounts:

Apt. ID: 26,900.00

exaggerated and/or undocumented IAls.

and other costs.

309 W. 571h Street

vacancy threshold necessary for such deregulation.

such improvements were made.

legal regulated rent.

39-89 51st Street

51 Program"), requiring Defendants to register Plaintifis' apartments with DHCR as rent-

in its DJ-ICR rent history.

provide fen the correct legal regulated rent.

43-32 47'h Street

4 7'h Street in Queens.

such improvements were made.

for the correct legal regulated rent.

43-35 42"d Street

Defendants to register Plaintiffs' apartments with DHCR as rent-stabilized.

registrations for Plaintiff Mann's apartment with DHCR.

legal regulated rcnL

58. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 3B supports the conclusion that no

such improvements were made.

legal regulated rent.

Thayer Street in Manhattan.

64. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 4F supports the conclusion that no

such improvements were made.

for the COJTect legal regulated rent.

66. Plaintiff Randy Garcia resides in Apartment 5B at 45 Thayer Street in Manhattan.

70. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmimcnt 5B supports the conclusion that no

such improvements were made.

legal regulated rent.

76. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 4A suppmis the conclusion that no

such improvements were made.

128 Post Avenue

78. PlaintiffTaileen Joa resides in Apartment 2J at 128 Post Avenue in Manhattan.

rental increase was due to lAls.

83. To the contrary, an inspection of Apartment 2J supports the conclusion that no

such improvements were made.

133 Seaman A venue

89. To the contrary, an inspection of Apmiment l E suppmis the conclusion that no

such improvements were made.