By Julie Shapiro
DNAinfo Reporter/Producer
TRIBECA — State Supreme Court Justice Marcy Friedman had sharp words last week for the lawyer representing Independence Plaza North tenants.
Seth Miller, the lawyer, has been arguing for five years that the TriBeCa complex’s 1,339 units should be rent-stabilized, because landlord Laurence Gluck received a J-51 tax break from the city.
But Miller and the tenants are facing an increasingly uphill battle, especially after the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal ruled in March that Independence Plaza should not be rent-stabilized. Friedman can now affirm or reverse that decision.
At last Thursday’s court hearing, Friedman told Miller that he was partly at fault, because he was the one who urged her to consider DHCR’s expert opinion in the first place.
“You have to be careful what you wish for,” Friedman told Miller during the 90-minute hearing.
“You bear some of the burden for the blame here,” she continued. “You asked for the remand to DHCR at the 11th hour of the case…. Why should the court not be bound by DHCR’s decision, given that you argued [that DHCR had jurisdiction]?”
Miller replied that he had learned his lesson. He said he was disappointed in DHCR’s decision, which he had expected to be in favor of the tenants. Miller said DHCR only considered superficial facts in the case.
The central question is whether Independence Plaza should have become rent-stabilized when Gluck removed the complex from the state’s Mitchell-Lama affordability program in 2004.
At that time, Gluck was receiving a J-51 tax break from the city, which ordinarily requires landlords to stabilize their buildings. Gluck continued receiving the tax break until 2006, when he asked the city to discontinue it.
Since the city Department of Housing Preservation and Development allowed Gluck to cancel the tax break and repay the credit he had received, Stephen Meister, Gluck’s lawyer, contends that Gluck owes the tenants nothing.
Miller, though, believes the city was wrong to allow Gluck to repay his taxes and skirt the rent-stabilization requirement. Miller hoped DHCR would question the city’s decision, but DHCR said it was outside of the state’s purview to second-guess a city agency.
There are no additional hearings scheduled in the case. Friedman could make a decision anytime, and then the losing party will likely appeal.
