Richard Altman, Respondent,v.285 West Fourth LLC, Appellant.BriefN.Y.March 22, 2018APL-2017-00054 New York County Clerk’s Index No. 155942/14 Court of Appeals of the State of New York RICHARD ALTMAN, Respondent, – against – 285 WEST FOURTH LLC, Appellant. BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE URBAN JUSTICE CENTER, COOPER SQUARE COMMITTEE, ST. NICKS ALLIANCE, MOBILIZATION FOR JUSTICE, INC., METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ON HOUSING, AND THE NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC ADVOCATE, LETITIA JAMES HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Attorney for Appellant 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel.: (212) 918-3000 Fax: (212) 918-3100 Date Completed: February 5, 2018 i CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF AMICI CURIAE The Urban Justice Center, Cooper Square Committee, St. Nicks Alliance, Mobilization for Justice, Inc. (formerly MFY Legal Services), and Metropolitan Council on Housing are non-profit 501(c)(3) corporations with no parents, affiliates, or subsidiaries. CASA (Community Action for Safe Apartments) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation affiliated with New Settlement Apartments, which is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation. Letitia James is the Public Advocate for the City of New York. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...............................................................................1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................7 ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................9 I. ALTMAN’S HOLDING IS CORRECT...............................................10 A. Landlord-Appellant Bears The Burden of Proving It is Entitled to Relief ................................................................10 B. Nothing In The Statutory Section Relied Upon By The Landlord Creates A Right To Evict Or Deregulate In This Case............................................................11 C. Rent Stabilization Law §26-504.2 May Not Be Re- Written By The Landlord To Include A Drastic Right To Eviction, Nor Can Landlord-Appellant Rely Upon The Provision’s Sparse Legislative History To Create That Right ...................................................14 D. The Holding in Altman I Did Not Change Prior Law............................................................................................18 II. THE RECOGNIZED PUBLIC POLICY PURPOSE OF THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW WEIGHS STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF AFFIRMNING THE DECISION BELOW...........................................................................21 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................25 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) 111 on 11 Realty Corp. v. Norton, 189 Misc. 2d 389, 732 N.Y.S.2d 840 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. Kings Cnty. 2001), rev’d on other grounds, 5 Misc. 3d 28, 783 N.Y.S.2d 744 (Sup. Ct. App. T. 2004) ......................................................................................13 132132 LLC v. Strasser, 24 Misc. 3d 140(A), 899 N.Y.S.2d 61 (Sup. Ct. App. T. 1st Dep’t 2009) ...................................................................................................................13 154 Realty Corp. v. Fischer, 19 Misc.2d 989, 185 N.Y.S.2d 612 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1959) ...................................................................................................................11 Matter of 18 St. Marks Place Trident LLC v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 149 A.D.3d 574 (1st Dep’t 2017) .......................................................................21 233 E. 5th St. LLC v. Smith, 54 Misc. 3d 79 (1st Dep’t 2016).........................................................................24 Aimco 322 E. 61st Street, LLC v. Brosius, 50 Misc. 3d 10, 21 N.Y.S.3d 803 (Sup. Ct. App. T. 1st Dep’t 2015) ..........19, 20 Altman v. 285 West Fourth LLC, 127 A.D.3d 654 (1st Dep’t 2015) ................................................................passim Altman v. 285 West Fourth LLC, 143 A.D.3d 415 (1st Dep’t 2016) .......................................................8, 21, 22, 23 Berfond v. Hoffman, 65 Misc. 2d 506, 319 N.Y.S.2d 44 (Sup. Ct. App. T. 1st Dep’t 1970) ...................................................................................................................11 Blitzkrieg Amusement Corp. v. Rubenstein Bros. Drinks, Inc., 184 Misc. 975, 55 N.Y.S.2d 379 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1945)..................10 Dekalb Cnty. Pension Fund v. Transocean Ltd., 817 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2016) ...............................................................................16 iv Dixon v. 105 W. 75th St. LLC, 148 A.D.3d 623, 53 N.Y.S.3d 1 (1st Dep’t 2017) ..............................................20 In re East Village Properties LLC, No. 17-22453-rdd..................................................................................................5 Empire State v. Graceline Handbags, 192 Misc. 679, 80 N.Y.S.2d 266 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1948)..................10 Excellus Health Plan, Inc. v. Serio, 2 N.Y.3d 166 (2004) ...........................................................................................15 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005)............................................................................................16 Frank v. Meadowlakes Dev. Corp., 6 N.Y.3d 687 (2006) ...........................................................................................15 Green v. Wasserman, 236 N.Y.S.2d 430 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1962).....................................10, 11 Henry Modell & Co. v. Minister, Elders & Deacons of Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of City of New York, 68 N.Y. 2d 456 (1986) ........................................................................................15 Jemrock Realty Co. v. Krugman, 13 N.Y.3d 924 (2010) ...................................................................................18, 19 Jemrock Realty Co. v. Krugman, 64 A.D.3d 290, 880 N.Y.S.2d 233 (1st Dep’t 2009) ..........................................19 Lerner v. W7879 LLC, 2012 NY Slip Op 32402(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2012) ....................13 Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency, 22 Misc.3d 568, 868 N.Y.S.2d 481 (Sup. Ct. Essex Cnty. 2008) ......................14 Park v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 150 A.D.3d 105, 50 N.Y.S.3d 377 (1st Dep’t 2017), leave to appeal dismissed, 30 N.Y.3d 961 (2017) ...........................................................20 People v. Glubo, 5 N.Y.2d 461 (1959) ...........................................................................................16 v People v. Smith, 139 A.D.3d 131, 30 N.Y.S.3d 19 (1st Dep’t 2016) ............................................14 People v. Sosa-Lopez, 54 Misc. 3d 545, 41 N.Y.S.3d 667 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2016) ...................................................................................................................17 Percudani v. Westchester Cnty. Playland Comm’n, 226 N.Y.S.2d 517 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cnty. 1962) .......................................15 Prop. Clerk, N.Y. City Police Dep’t v. Seroda, 131 A.D.2d 289, 521 N.Y.S.2d 233 (1st Dep’t 1987) ..........................................5 RGH Liquidating Tr. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 71 A.D.3d 198, 891 N.Y.S.2d 324 (1st Dep’t 2009) ............................................5 Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., 13 N.Y.3d 270, 918 N.E.2d 900, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388 (2009) ..............................19 Matter of Smith v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 2010 NY Slip Op 31648(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. June 28, 2010).....................13 Steiner v. Laskin, 17 Misc.2d 141, 182 N.Y.S.2d 958 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1958) ...................................................................................................................11 United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554 (1940)............................................................................................16 Statutes Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 ......................................................................17 Rent Stabilization Law §26-504.2 ....................................................................passim Rent Stabilization Law §2522.4...............................................................................19 Other Authorities “Good Guys Finish Last,” Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, published May 7, 2017 and available at http://bbwg.com/media/bbwg_may_v03.pdf......................................................24 vi New York City Rent Guidelines Board Rent Stabilization FAQ (last visited February 5, 2018), available at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/rentguidelinesboard/resources/rent- stabilization.page ............................................................................................3, 21 “2017 Housing Supply Report,” published May 15, 2017, available at http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/rentguidelinesboard/pdf/17HSR.pdf .....................22 New York County Lawyers’ Association, The New York City Housing Court in the 21st Century: Can It Better Address the Problems Before It? (Oct.2005), available at: http://cwtfhc.org/wp- content/uploads/2009/06/NYCLA_HC_in_21st_Cent.pdf ..................................6 Urban Justice Center, 2017 Annual Report, available at https://2017.urbanjustice.org/ ...............................................................................1 Urban Justice Center, The Burden of Fees: How Affordable Housing is Made Unaffordable 10 (Sept. 2013), available at: https://cdp.urbanjustice.org/sites/default/files/The%20Burden%20o f%20Fees_FINAL.pdf ..........................................................................................5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Urban Justice Center (“UJC”), Cooper Square Committee, St. Nicks Alliance, Mobilization for Justice, Inc. (formerly MFY Legal Services), Metropolitan Council on Housing, and the New York City Public Advocate, Letitia James (collectively, “Amici”) respectfully jointly submit this amici curiae brief to raise important community concerns regarding the Landlord-Appellant’s effort to overturn the unanimous rulings of the Appellate Division, First Department in this case. UJC has served New York City's most vulnerable residents since 1981 through a combination of direct legal service, systemic advocacy, community education and political organizing. A large part of our UJC’s work involves assisting regulated tenants, many of whom are at risk of losing their apartments due to deregulation if the decisions of the Appellate Division below are reversed. UJC has represented or advised thousands of low-income, rent regulated tenants in their opposition to improper deregulation, rent increases, or evictions by landlords, and has first-hand experience with attempts by landlords to deprive tenants of their rights and, often, their homes. In 2017 alone, UJC’s efforts affected 14,500 people, resulting in over $10 million in taxpayer savings and the closure of nearly 10,000 2016 cases.1 1 See UJC’s 2017 Annual Report, available at https://2017.urbanjustice.org/. 2 Letitia James is the Public Advocate for the City of New York. The Public Advocate is the second-highest ranking official in the City’s government, elected by the electorate of all five boroughs of the City of New York. See New York City Charter §§ 10(a), 24(a). The Office of the Public Advocate serves as a direct link between City residents and its government, acting as a “watchdog” for New Yorkers by providing oversight of City agencies, investigating citizens’ complaints about City services, making proposals to address perceived shortcomings or failures of those services, and, when appropriate, initiating actions in court. Among the City agencies over which the Public Advocate's office has oversight is the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development ("HPD") which enforces the City's administration of laws that protect tenants. Since taking office in January 2014, the Office of the Public Advocate has received more than 23,000 complaints from City residents regarding City agencies and services, and a significant portion of those complaints concern housing related matters. As a result, the Public Advocate has a substantial interest in ensuring that state rent stabilization law is enforced to the fullest extent to protect New York City residents. Amici Cooper Square Committee, St. Nick’s Alliance, Mobilization for Justice, Inc. (formerly MFY Legal Services), and Metropolitan Council on Housing are all non-profit organizations dedicated to assisting rent-regulated 3 tenants. Additional detail on the interest each Amicus has in this case is set forth in Appendix A. Amici submit this amici curiae brief to explain to the Court the critical impact the issues in this case will have on New York families and tenants and why, viewed in context, Landlord-Appellant’s arguments must be rejected. As discussed more fully herein, the issues presented on appeal are of profound importance to tens of thousands, if not more, of the approximately 1 million New York families currently living in rent regulated apartments.2 If Landlord-Appellant prevails, these families could face sudden and dramatic rent increases – which may lead to eviction – as soon as their leases next come up for renewal. Any tenant that moved into and continues to live in a stabilized apartment from 1997 forward could be affected by the outcome of this case, including scores of elderly and disabled people with nowhere else to go. The Rent Stabilization Law – a statute that was drafted with the distinct purpose of protecting tenants and preserving affordable housing – does not permit such a result. At heart, Landlord-Appellant’s argument on appeal is that the Court should construe a loosely worded provision in the Rent Stabilization Law as permitting landlords to retroactively destabilize apartments years or even decades 2 See New York City Rent Guidelines Board Rent Stabilization FAQ (last visited February 5, 2018), available at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/rentguidelinesboard/resources/rent-stabilization.page. 4 after tenants moved in, by claiming that vacancy allowances rendered their apartments automatically and silently destabilized when tenants moved in up to 21 years ago. But nothing in the statute the Landlord-Appellant relies on says anything about taking vacancy allowances into account in determining if an apartment can be deregulated, and there is no basis to read language not found in the text into the law. That is all the more true here given the heavy burden Landlord-Appellant bears in contending that the Rent Stabilization Law – a statute which is intended to protect tenants and preserve affordable housing – allows a landlord to obtain the drastic remedy of evicting long-term tenants. Landlord-Appellant’s recourse to the statute’s sparse and manufactured legislative history offers no basis to insert wording into the statute that would permit the drastic result sought here. Nor is there any merit to the Landlord-Appellant’s suggestion that the First Department’s decision below broke with established precedents from this or any other court. As set forth more fully herein, this is the first case to squarely present the statutory interpretation question at the heart of Landlord-Appellant’s appeal, and the First Department correctly decided the issue as a matter of first impression. No basis exists to overturn the First Department’s rulings. Further, Landlord-Appellant’s argument that the Rent Stabilization Law should be construed to allow for decontrol based on vacancy allowances would 5 produce disastrous results for thousands of the most vulnerable members of our society – the very people the statute at issue is supposed to protect. As it is, many New York landlords have become notorious for violating rules and engaging in improper, unethical and often dangerous tactics to drive regulated tenants out of their homes.3 For instance, according to recent court filings by the New York Attorney General, one East Village landlord with “a reputation for harassing tenants and engaging in fraud and misrepresentations” acquired 15 separate New York buildings as part of a coordinated plan “to evict or buy out half of the tenants in these buildings, including those protected by New York’s affordable rent regulation laws” – a plan that the Attorney General has stated in court filings “could not be executed without disregarding tenants’ rights”.4 Allowing landlords 3 See e.g. UJC’s 2013 report on “The Burden of Fees”, which detailed how many landlords use various types of legal and illegal fees to dramatically increase low- income rent regulated tenants’ housing costs. Urban Justice Center, The Burden of Fees: How Affordable Housing is Made Unaffordable 10 (Sept. 2013), available at: https://cdp.urbanjustice.org/sites/default/files/The%20Burden%20of%20Fees_FIN AL.pdf. 4 See Objection of the New York Attorney General ¶¶ 5, 6, filed as ECF 75 in In re East Village Properties LLC, No. 17-22453-rdd (Bkrtcy. S.D.N.Y.), as to which this Court may take judicial notice. See RGH Liquidating Tr. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 71 A.D.3d 198, 207, 891 N.Y.S.2d 324, 331 (1st Dep’t 2009), rev'd, 17 N.Y.3d 397, 955 N.E.2d 329 (1st Dep’t 2011), rev’d on other grounds (taking judicial notice of documents filed in bankruptcy action); Prop. Clerk, N.Y. City Police Dep't v. Seroda, 131 A.D.2d 289, 294 n.2, 521 N.Y.S.2d 233, 237 n.2 (1st Dep’t 1987) (taking judicial notice of documents filed in federal action). 6 to deregulate apartments through “churn” – getting rid of tenants so landlords can claim vacancy allowances and count them towards luxury decontrol thresholds – will only exacerbate this type of conduct. Not only are stabilized tenants’ rights under siege as it is, but they by definition have limited resources to fight landlords engaged in improper behavior. As a report from the New York County Lawyers’ Association notes, “the overwhelming majority of tenants who appear (or default) in New York City Housing Court proceedings cannot afford to pay for counsel to represent them.”5 Allowing landlords to throw the status of thousands of apartments into chaos would in all likelihood create a situation that overwhelms the limited resources available to protect regulated tenants, resulting in significant abuses of regulated tenants’ rights by landlords and the loss of large eviction protections that keep large numbers of New Yorkers in their homes. There is no reason to construe the Rent Stabilization Law in a manner that would lead to such results. For all these reasons, Amici respectfully submit that the decisions below must be affirmed, and this appeal dismissed. 5 See New York County Lawyers’ Association, The New York City Housing Court in the 21st Century: Can It Better Address the Problems Before It? (Oct.2005), available at: http://cwtfhc.org/wp- content/uploads/2009/06/NYCLA_HC_in_21st_Cent.pdf. 7 STATEMENT OF FACTS Tenant-Appellee Richard Altman has been living in an apartment at 285 West 4th Street in Manhattan (the “Apartment”) continuously for almost fifteen years. (R. 21). The parties do not dispute that when Altman began his tenancy, the Apartment was rent-stabilized under New York City’s Rent Stabilization Code (“RSL”), and registered with a rent of $1,829.49 with the Department of Housing and Community Renewal (“DHCR”). (R. 57–59). While Altman began his tenancy in the Apartment as a subtenant, in March 2005, approximately a year after he moved into the Apartment, Altman was issued a prime lease in his own name and has been the prime tenant ever since. (R. 21, 40–50). Two years after Altman moved into the Apartment, the building in which the Apartment is located was sold to Landlord-Appellant. The following year, Altman’s lease expired and Landlord-Appellant demanded that, as a condition of extending him a new lease, Altman sign an agreement declaring that (1) the Apartment was no longer rent stabilized, (2) the apartment had not been rent- stabilized since Altman had become the prime tenant three years prior, and (3) Altman would suffer certain enumerated penalties if he ever challenged the rent- stabilized status of the Apartment. (R. 59–60). For the next ten years Altman lived in the Apartment pursuant to this agreement (later found to be illegal and unenforceable), with Landlord-Appellant treating the Apartment as deregulated 8 and ultimately increasing his rent to $4,100 in 2014. When Altman discovered that he had been coerced into signing an agreement that improperly induced him to give up his tenant rights and had been grossly overcharged rent for the preceding ten years, he commenced the current action. (R. 19–31). The current action was commenced in June 2014, and since that time the court below has confirmed on four separate occasions that Altman’s Apartment was subject to rent stabilization during the entirety of his nearly fifteen-year tenancy: first, in connection with the initial Altman appeal, see Altman v. 285 West Fourth LLC, 127 A.D.3d 654 (1st Dep’t 2015) (“Altman I”) (reversing Supreme Court’s original order dismissing Altman’s complaint and declaring the Apartment subject to rent stabilization); second, on Landlord-Appellant’s motion for reconsideration and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which was denied on October 28, 2015; third, on appeal from a subsequent decision issued by the trial court after remand, which Appellate Division denied on October 4, 2016, see Altman v. 285 West Fourth LLC, 143 A.D.3d 415 (1st Dep’t 2016) (“Altman II”) (affirming Supreme Court’s second order, consistent with Altman I, to award tremble damages and prejudgment interest as a result of Defendant-Appellant’s willful and unlawful charging of unregulated rent); and fourth, on Landlord- Appellant’s second motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which Appellate Division denied on January 5, 2017. 9 In doing so, the First Department repeatedly and soundly rejected Landlord- Appellant’s arguments that the Apartment became automatically deregulated when Altman first became the prime tenant in 2005 and his net rent, inclusive of vacancy and longevity increases, exceeded $2,000 (then the vacancy regulation threshold under RSL § 26-504.2(a)). ARGUMENT The unanimous decision of the Appellate Division should be affirmed under well-settled legal principles for construing provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law. As described more fully below, it is undisputed that nothing in RSL 26-504.2 states that a landlord can use a vacancy allowance to destabilize a regulated apartment, and there is no basis to import such a right into the statute. The sparse legislative history advanced by Landlord-Appellant hardly justifies re-writing the statute, particularly where doing so would lead to the drastic result sought here of authorizing the eviction of a rent-paying tenant based on rights that purportedly accrued more than a decade ago. Further, the public policy consequences of Landlord-Appellant’s requested ruling militate strongly against reversing the rulings below. Accordingly, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court should affirm the rulings below and dismiss Landlord-Appellant’s appeal. 10 I. ALTMAN’S HOLDING IS CORRECT A. Landlord-Appellant Bears The Burden of Proving It is Entitled to Relief As a preliminary matter, it is well-settled that Landlord-Appellant bears the burden of identifying a clear statutory entitlement to evict a rent stabilized tenant or deregulate a rent stabilized apartment. “Where the landlord seeks to avail himself of the benefits of the statute the risk and burden of seeking decontrol by means of this statute is upon the landlord to comply with the provisions thereof. The landlord must strictly comply with every requirement thereof.” Green v. Wasserman, 236 N.Y.S.2d 430, 433 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1962) (citing 154 Realty Corp. v. Fischer, 19 Misc.2d 989, 185 N.Y.S.2d 612 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1959); Steiner v. Laskin, 17 Misc.2d 141, 182 N.Y.S.2d 958 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1958)). Literal compliance with the statute is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Empire State v. Graceline Handbags, 192 Misc. 679, 686, 80 N.Y.S.2d 266, 273 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1948) (“[B]efore this petitioner may recover the possession of these premises, it must meet the literal requirements of the exceptions contained in Section 8 of the Act . . .”). Here, Landlord-Appellant bears an especially high burden because it is relying on the Rent Stabilization Law, which must be strictly construed against landlords and in favor of tenants in recognition of the statute’s purpose in protecting tenants from eviction by landlords. Blitzkrieg Amusement Corp. v. 11 Rubenstein Bros. Drinks, Inc., 184 Misc. 975, 980, 55 N.Y.S.2d 379, 384 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1945) (“The primary purpose of the act was to protect tenants in possession at the time the act became effective and must be liberally construed in their favor.”); Berfond v. Hoffman, 65 Misc. 2d 506, 508, 319 N.Y.S.2d 44, 46– 47 (Sup. Ct. App. T. 1st Dep’t 1970) (“The lower court determined that the Rent Stabilization Association and HDA disagreed ‘on the construction of the Code and the Act’, and that – with respect to the applicable provisions of both – ‘an ambiguity clearly does exist and the need for clarification is obvious.’ Basing its resolution of the ‘ambiguity’ upon a consideration of the purpose and intent of the statute, the lower court decided the issue in favor of the tenant.”); Green, 236 N.Y.S.2d at 433; 154 Realty Corp. v. Fischer, 19 Misc.2d 989, 185 N.Y.S.2d 612 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1959); Steiner v. Laskin, 17 Misc.2d 141, 182 N.Y.S.2d 958 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1958). As shown below, Landlord-Appellant has not met its burden. A literal reading of the statute, as required in this case, shows that the Apartment is subject to rent stabilization and the decision of the Appellate Division must be affirmed. B. Nothing In The Statutory Section Relied Upon By The Landlord Creates A Right To Evict Or Deregulate In This Case Landlord-Appellant argues that under RSL 26-504.2, statutory vacancy increases can be taken into account to destabilize an otherwise stabilized apartment. 12 There is nothing in the statute that supports Landlord-Appellant’s (flawed) proposition. Rather, the statute states in relevant part: “Housing accommodations” shall not include: any housing accommodation which becomes vacant on or after April first, nineteen hundred ninety-seven and before the effective date of the rent act of 2011 and where at the time the tenant vacated such housing accommodation the legal regulated rent was two thousand dollars or more per month; or, for any housing accommodation which is or becomes vacant on or after the effective date of the rent regulation reform act of 1997 and before the effective date of the rent act of 2011, with a legal regulated rent of two thousand dollars or more per month; or for any housing accommodation that becomes vacant on or after the effective date of the rent act of 2015, where such legal regulated rent was two thousand seven hundred dollars or more, and as further adjusted by this section. What the statute explicitly states is that deregulation is permitted where the apartment “is or becomes vacant” with a legal regulated rent above $2,000. In other words, an apartment must have a legal regulated rent above $2,000 at the time of vacancy, before any allowances are applied, to be removed from the protections of rent stabilization. The statute does not say that vacancy allowances may count towards the deregulation threshold, nor does the statute permit a landlord to deregulate an apartment upon the application of a vacancy allowance where the previous tenant paid rent below the required threshold. Pursuant to the statute, Altman’s Apartment did not “become vacant” with a legal regulated rent above $2,000 per month, evidenced by the fact that: (1) the departing tenant’s rent was $1,829.49, over $170 per month below the required 13 threshold; and, (2) there was no vacancy because Altman originally took possession as a subtenant prior to the expiration of the departing tenant’s lease. See Altman I; see also 132132 LLC v. Strasser, 24 Misc. 3d 140(A), 899 N.Y.S.2d 61 (Sup. Ct. App. T. 1st Dep’t 2009): Even assuming, without deciding, that landlord, upon an appropriate agency application, may have qualified for a “vacancy allowance” based upon the addition of Tuohey as a tenant (see e.g. Matter of Pikus, DHCR Administrative Review Docket No. ARL 13169–L, Nov. 28, 1988), any such eligibility would not have served to automatically exempt the apartment from regulation. Deregulation under the Rent Stabilization Law occurs only by two means: (1) where a housing accommodation becomes vacant on or after April 1, 1997 and at the time of the tenant(s)' vacatur, the monthly legal regulated rent was $2,000 or more or (2) for an occupied housing accommodation, by order of DHCR, where the tenant's annual income exceeds $175,000 and the legal regulated rent is $2,000 per month or more (see Rent Stabilization Law [Administrative Code of City of NY] §§ 26–504.1, 26–504.2). Neither statutory criterion was established here. Id. See also Lerner v. W7879 LLC, 2012 NY Slip Op 32402(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2012) (“The new sections of the Rent Stabilization Law provided for the deregulation of residential units that became vacant with a legal regulated rent of $2,000 or more per month.”); Matter of Smith v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 2010 NY Slip Op 31648(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. June 28, 2010) (same); 111 on 11 Realty Corp. v. Norton, 189 Misc. 2d 389, 398, 732 N.Y.S.2d 840, 847 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. Kings Cnty. 2001), rev'd on other grounds, 5 Misc. 3d 28, 783 N.Y.S.2d 744 (Sup. Ct. App. T. 2004) (“only after a regulated 14 apartment that rents for more than $2,000.00 is vacated does the unit become decontrolled”). In short, nothing in the text of RSL 26-504.2 allows Landlord-Appellant to deregulate Altman’s apartment in the circumstances presented in this case. Landlord-Appellant has therefore failed to meet the heavy burden it bears in seeking a judicial blessing to evict Altman. C. Rent Stabilization Law §26-504.2 May Not Be Re-Written By The Landlord To Include A Drastic Right To Eviction, Nor Can Landlord-Appellant Rely Upon The Provision’s Sparse Legislative History To Create That Right It is well-settled that a statute must be construed in accordance with its terms, and that courts may not resort to legislative history to re-write the statutory text. Courts in New York have repeatedly recognized that the statutory text is “the clearest indicator of legislative intent.” People v. Smith, 139 A.D.3d 131, 135, 30 N.Y.S.3d 19, 22 (1st Dep’t 2016). As such, courts are required to give effect to the plain meaning of the statutory text: In construing statutes, it is a well-established rule that resort must be had to the natural signification of the words employed, and if they have a definite meaning, which involves no absurdity or contradiction, there is no room for construction and courts have no right to add to or take away from that meaning. Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency, 22 Misc.3d 568, 577, 868 N.Y.S.2d 481, 490 (Sup. Ct. Essex Cnty. 2008) (citation omitted). Furthermore, if 15 the statutory text seems unreasonable it is for the Legislature to amend it and not for the courts to rewrite it: The legislative history of this amendment . . . may indicate a broader proscription than that specifically and unambiguously delineated in the section, but this court is bound to read statutes as they are written and, if the consequence seems unwise, unreasonable or undesirable, the argument for a change or addition is to be addressed to the Legislature, not to the courts. Percudani v. Westchester Cnty. Playland Comm’n, 226 N.Y.S.2d 517, 520 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cnty. 1962) (citation omitted). Consistent with well-settled law, this Court has repeatedly held that statutory language must be construed “according to its natural and most obvious sense, without resorting to an artificial or forced construction.” Frank v. Meadowlakes Dev. Corp., 6 N.Y.3d 687, 692 (2006). See also Excellus Health Plan, Inc. v. Serio, 2 N.Y.3d 166, 171 (2004) (“unambiguous language of a statute is alone determinative … [and] a determination … that runs counter to the clear wording of a statutory provision is given little weight.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, courts will not rewrite a statute “to add language that the Legislature did not see fit to include.” Henry Modell & Co. v. Minister, Elders & Deacons of Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of City of New York, 68 N.Y. 2d 456, 463 (1986). Under the above precedents, neither Landlord-Appellant nor this Court may inject language into RSL §26-504.2 to permit the eviction of a paying tenant or to 16 support the improper deregulation of the Apartment. This is particularly true where, as here, (i) the legislative history is sparse, artificial, and unclear, and (ii) the terms of the statute at issue are unequivocal so that they may carry out its purpose of protecting tenants and preserving affordable housing. See generally Dekalb Cnty. Pension Fund v. Transocean Ltd., 817 F.3d 393, 403–04 (2d Cir. 2016), as amended (Apr. 29, 2016) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568 (2005) “[n]ot all extrinsic materials are reliable sources of insight into legislative understandings.”). Reliance on legislative materials when interpreting a statute – such as a governor’s memorandum as Landlord-Appellant suggests here – has been held improper in numerous cases because it gives unelected persons “both the power and the incentive to attempt strategic manipulations of legislative history to secure results they were unable to achieve through the statutory text.” Exxon Mobil, 545 U.S. at 568. It follows that when legislative materials are “without probative value, or contradictory, or ambiguous,” they cannot be permitted to control customary meaning of words or “overcome rules of syntax or construction found by experience to be workable.” United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 562 (1940). Moreover, the Governor is not the Legislature; and therefore, his opinion cannot influence this Court’s decision. See People v. Glubo, 5 N.Y.2d 461, 474 (1959) (“[T]he courts construe statutes, not the Governor . . .”). 17 Thus, the proper measure of the legislative intent behind RSL §26-504.2 are the words chosen by the Legislature, and courts are mandated to give those words controlling effect. See People v. Sosa-Lopez, 54 Misc. 3d 545, 549, 41 N.Y.S.3d 667 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2016) (citing Reynoso v. Aviles, 87 F. Supp. 3d 549, 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) the “Court’s role is to interpret a statute. It is not to rewrite it.”). It is undisputed that the language of RSL §26-504.2 does not explicitly permit a landlord to evict a tenant or to deregulate an apartment based upon the application of a vacancy allowance. Thus, this Court is prohibited from adding such a right. Landlord-Appellant argues that Altman’s construction of §26-504.2 renders part of its language superfluous because the provision permitting decontrol where an apartment “is or becomes vacant . . . with a legal regulated rent of two thousand dollars” has the same meaning as the provision permitting decontrol “where at the time the tenant vacated such housing accommodation the legal regulated rent was two thousand dollars or more per month.” That is simply incorrect. The first portion of the statutory text addresses the regulated status of apartments that had already been vacated prior to the effective date of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997, and provides that such apartments can only be deregulated if the prior tenant’s rent exceeded the $2,000 threshold. The second portion of the statutory text addresses apartments becoming vacant in the future, after passage of the Rent 18 Regulation Reform Act. That provision makes clear that an apartment that was occupied at the time of the Act’s passage (such that there was no relevant “prior tenant” at that time), but that became vacant on or after the Act’s effective date, could also not be deregulated unless at the time of the effective date, that apartment “is or becomes vacant . . . with a legal regulated rent of two thousand dollars or more per month.” There is no conflict between these two provisions. Here, Altman’s Apartment was arguably vacant, if at all, with a regulated rent that was approximately $170 below the required threshold to properly remove the Apartment from the protections of rent stabilization. As such, the Apartment remains stabilized under the clear terms of the statute. D. The Holding in Altman I Did Not Change Prior Law Landlord-Appellant incorrectly asserts that Altman I is contrary to prior precedents from this Court and the Appellate Divisions, but as shown below, none of the cases relied upon by Landlord-Appellant deal with the issue presented here. In Jemrock Realty Co. v. Krugman, the issue before the Court was “whether the landlord’s expenditures for ‘improvements’ were at least equal to the amount . . . necessary to bring the legal rent above the luxury decontrol threshold.” Jemrock Realty Co. v. Krugman, 13 N.Y.3d 924, 926 (2010). The Court held that the question presented was of factual nature and needed to be resolved by the fact 19 finder. Id. The Court did not discuss vacancy increases or RSL §26-504.2 once in Jemrock, nor did the First Department when it issued its own opinion in that case. See Jemrock Realty Co. v. Krugman, 64 A.D.3d 290, 880 N.Y.S.2d 233 (1st Dep’t 2009). Unlike the instant case, further proceedings in Jemrock continued to focus on the issue of apartment renovations to support a rent increase – not vacancy allowances that are at issue here – which required the Jemrock court to interpret RSL §2522.4, and not RSL §26-504.2, the latter being the statute at issue in this case. Id. at 293, 880 N.Y.S.2d at 235. Likewise, Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P. is inapposite to the instant case because the issue in Roberts was whether the provisions permitting luxury decontrol pursuant to RSL §26-504 applied to buildings receiving tax benefits under the J-51 Program. Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., 13 N.Y.3d 270, 280, 918 N.E.2d 900, 902, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388, 390 (2009). The instant case is distinguishable from Roberts in two important ways: first, Altman asks the Court whether a vacancy allowance – not a post-vacancy improvement – can be included in the calculus to deregulate; and second, Altman involves an apartment improperly removed from the protections of rent stabilization, not the deregulation of a building under the J-51 Program. Aimco 322 E. 61st Street, LLC v. Brosius is similarly inapposite. As an initial matter, Aimco cannot supersede the First Department’s rulings in Altman I. 20 Further, Aimco never decided the question presented in Altman I. See Aimco 322 E. 61st Street, LLC v. Brosius, 50 Misc. 3d 10, 21 N.Y.S.3d 803 (Sup. Ct. App. T. 1st Dep’t 2015). Rather, Aimco held only that several issues of fact existed as to “whether the apartment at issue was exempt from rent stabilization because of a high rent vacancy that occurred in 2001.” Id. at 11, 21 N.Y.S.3d at 804. As such, there is no basis for Landlord-Appellant’s assertion that Altman upset settled law. Landlord-Appellant claims the First Department has moved away from its own ruling in Altman I in the two years since that case was decided, but that is incorrect. Park v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 150 A.D.3d 105, 112, 50 N.Y.S.3d 377, 382 (1st Dep’t 2017), leave to appeal dismissed, 30 N.Y.3d 961 (2017) involved the expiration of J-51 benefits not at issue here, which the court found were “pivotal events that affected the regulated status of the apartment.” No such J-51 benefits are at issue in this case. Dixon v. 105 W. 75th St. LLC, 148 A.D.3d 623, 53 N.Y.S.3d 1 (1st Dep’t 2017) involved the circumstances under which a landlord may charge “first rent” under the Rent Stabilization Code, and held that a landlord could do so “where the landlord substantially alters the outer dimensions of a vacant housing accommodation” – an issue not raised in this case. 148 A.D.3d at 627, 53 N.Y.S.3d at 6 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Dixon’s holding that a landlord “may escape rent regulation if it expends 21 enough money renovating the apartment such that one-fortieth of the expenditure, added to the last regulated rent, brings the rent above the $2,000 threshold” is similarly inapposite to the instant case because Landlord-Appellant does not claim renovations brought the Apartment above the deregulation threshold. Matter of 18 St. Marks Place Trident LLC v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 149 A.D.3d 574, 50 NY.S.3d 273 (1st Dep’t 2017) similarly involved decontrol based on improvements, and is therefore distinguishable. In sum, Altman I correctly found that Altman’s Apartment remained stabilized, and nothing about that decision upsets prior precedents or creates a “sea change” in the law. The decisions below were correct and should not be disturbed. II. THE RECOGNIZED PUBLIC POLICY PURPOSE OF THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW WEIGHS STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF AFFIRMNING THE DECISION BELOW In addition to being legally unsupportable, Landlord-Appellant’s request for a judicial re-write of RSL §26-504.2 would result in drastic consequences plainly at odds with the recognized public policy goals of the Rent Stabilization Law – a result that further militates against the relief Landlord-Appellant seeks in this case. Indeed, endorsing Landlord-Appellant’s position by disturbing Altman I and Altman II could have drastic and devastating effects on unknown numbers of the 22 over one million tenants currently living in rent stabilized apartments throughout New York City.6 In recent years, New York landlords have succeeded in recent years in removing enormous numbers of apartments from rent stabilization and rent control programs, even without the reversal of Altman I that Landlord-Appellant seeks in this appeal. The New York City Rent Guidelines Board recently found that “[s]ince 1994, at least 152,147 units were registered with the DHCR as being deregulated due to High-Rent Vacancy Deregulation, 70% of which have been in Manhattan.” 7 Allowing landlords to deregulate retroactively based on the argument that apartments that have been treated as stabilized for years were actually deregulated automatically at the time of their last vacancy – as Landlord- Appellant urges – would only exacerbate the city’s growing crisis in preserving affordable housing. If the Court were to favor Landlord-Appellant’s interpretation of the statute, it would also create a perverse incentive for landlords to use improper means to drive out tenants quickly so as to increase the number of available vacancies and vacancy allowances and expedite a landlord’s ability to deregulate apartments. 6 See New York City Rent Guidelines Board Rent Stabilization FAQ (last visited Jan. 12, 2018), available at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/rentguidelinesboard/resources/rent-stabilization.page. 7 See “2017 Housing Supply Report,” published May 15, 2017, available at http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/rentguidelinesboard/pdf/17HSR.pdf. 23 Unlike situations such as improvement allowances – which are theoretically aimed at encouraging landlords to invest in repairing and renovating apartments though have led to widespread abuse, fraud, and rights violations by landlords – there is no possible justification for encouraging landlords to churn tenants. Landlord-Appellant, landlords, and their advocates have tried to characterize Altman I and Altman II as a crisis for landlords of rent-stabilized properties, but their concerns have proven to be both overstated and misplaced. Landlord- Appellant cites no evidence that Altman I is producing any flood of litigation or other destabilizing influence since it was decided in 2015. And while Landlord- Appellant complains about the penalties imposed on it in Altman II, this Court can easily remand for further proceedings on the fact-specific issue of whether Landlord-Appellant in this case should be penalized for willful overcharges. Further, apartments that are restored to regulated status will provide their tenants with the protections the Rent Stabilization Law was passed to ensure, and will remain subject to regulation under all of the law’s acknowledged bases, such as high income decontrol. Contrary to Landlord-Appellant’s assertions, the real danger to the public is that if the Court declines to affirm, unknown numbers of rent stabilized tenants may suddenly find that their landlords can abruptly and retroactively deregulate their apartments and grossly inflate their rents, regardless of how long the tenants 24 have been living there under the genuine belief that their apartments are rent- stabilized. Indeed, counsel for the landlord group that filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Landlord-Appellant in the First Department acknowledge on their website that the outcome of this case will affect “tens of thousands of apartments.”8 Unlike with Landlord-Appellant’s predictions—which are unsubstantiated, since, contrary to their claims, no flood of litigation against landlords of rent- stabilized properties has materialized since the First Department’s initial vindication of Altman’s claims over two-and-a-half years ago—there is ample reason to believe that a reversal of Altman I and II will have a material and adverse effect on tenants, as landlords are already trying to use Landlord-Appellant’s arguments as a cudgel against rent-stabilized tenants, even before this Court reaches its decision. See, e.g., 233 E. 5th St. LLC v. Smith, 54 Misc. 3d 79 (1st Dep’t 2016). Therefore even if law and common sense did not dictate an affirmance (which they do), the public interest in not abruptly inflating the rents of unknown numbers of longstanding tenants currently residing in rent-stabilized housing certainly does. Amici respectfully submit that the judgment below should be affirmed. 8 See “Good Guys Finish Last,” Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, published May 7, 2017 and available at http://bbwg.com/media/bbwg_may_v03.pdf. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and those presented in Altman’s submissions below and to this Court, Amici respectfully request that the Court affirm the decisions of the Appellate Division. February 5, 2018 Pieter Van Tol David R. Michaeli Daryl L. Kleiman Hogan Lovells US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212)918-3000 Facsimile: (212)918-3100 pieter.vantol@hoganlovells.com david.michaeli@hoganlovells.com Attorneys for Amici 25 NEW YORK STATE COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify pursuant to 22 NYCRR PART 500.1(j) that the foregoing brief was prepared on a computer using [name of word processing system]. Type. A proportionally spaced typeface was used, as follows: Name of typeface: Times New Roman Point size: 14 Line spacing: Double Word Count. The total number of words in this brief, inclusive of point headings and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, table of citations, proof of service, certificate of compliance, corporate disclosure statement, questions presented, statement of related cases, or any authorized addendum containing statutes, rules, regulations, etc., is 5797 words. Dated: February 5, 2018 Hogan Lovells US LLP Attorney for Amici Curiae 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel.: (212) 918-3000 Fax: (212) 918-3100 APPENDIX A – DETAILED STATEMENTS OF INTEREST OF AMICI Statement of Interest of Amicus Curiae Letitia James is the Public Advocate for the City of New York. The Public Advocate is the second-highest ranking official in the City’s government, elected by the electorate of all five boroughs of the City of New York. See New York City Charter §§ 10(a), 24(a). The Office of the Public Advocate serves as a direct link between City residents and its government, acting as a “watchdog" for New Yorkers by providing oversight of City agencies, investigating citizens' complaints about City services, making proposals to address perceived shortcomings or failures of those services, and, when appropriate, initiating actions in court. Among the City agencies over which the Public Advocate’s office has oversight is the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”) which enforces the City’s administration of laws that protect tenants. Since taldng office in January 2014, the Office of the Public Advocate has received more than 23,000 complaints from City residents regarding City agencies and services, and a significant portion of those complaints concern housing related matters. As a result, the Public Advocate has a substantial interest in ensuring that state rent stabilization law is enforced to the fullest extent to protect New York City residents. Dated: February 5, 2018 New York, New York f\A SIn Molly Thomas-Jensen Counsel Office of NYC Public Advocate Letitia James 1 Centre Street, 15th Floor North New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 669-4092 Statement of Interest of Amicus Curiae The Metropolitan Council on Housing is a tenants' rights membership organization made up of New York City tenants who believe in our motto of "housing for people, not profit." We formed over 58 years ago to fights for a city where everyone has access to safe, decent, affordable housing. We organize tenants to stand up not only for their individual rights, but also for changes to our housing policies. We serve the one million NYC households who are rent stabilized or regulated, particularly those who most vulnerable to displacement-working class and low- income New Yorkers. We operate a number of tenant-assistance programs, run by our members, including a tenants' rights telephone hotline and a walk-in clinic, which serve thousands per year and are free and open to any New York City tenant. We publish the city's only monthly newspaper on the tenant movement, and produce a weekly radio show on housing issues. New York City is undergoing a housing crisis. For our tenants, rent regulation is the only way they can afford to continue to living in New York City and maintain their livelihoods. We believe that vacancy decontrol in New York State has set in motion a process that will lead to the complete dismantling of our rent regulation system, destroying housing and neighborhood stability for over a million New Yorkers. Affirming Altman is one step that will keep rent-stabilized tenants in their homes as we continue to work to strengthen our rent stabilization laws. February 5T, 2018 New York, New York Dated: Ava Farkas Executive Director 168 Canal St., 6th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 453-9500 Fax: (718) 387-4683 Statement of Interest of Amicus Curiae St. Nicks Alliance was founded in 1975 by a group of concerned residents. Its mission is to serve as a catalyst to improve the quality of life for Williamsburg- Greenpoint Brooklyn residents by addressing economic, educational, health, housing and social needs while preserving the vibrant and diverse character of the community, particularly for low and moderate-income residents. Every year, St. Nicks provides housing counseling and organizing to over 900 individuals and organizes between 20 -30 tenants associations per year. St. Nicks Alliance works with many clients who live in rent-stabilized apartments. Many of them suffer at the hands of landlords who are seeking to deregulate their apartments, either through neglect or active harassment. A decision that limits the speed at which rent-stabilized apartments are deregulated would have a huge impact on our community. Dated: February 2018 New York, New York ~7 Frank Lang Director of Housing 2 Kingsland Ave Brooklyn, NY 11211 Telephone: (718)388-5454 Statement of Interest of Amicus Curiae The Cooper Square Committee’s mission is to work with area residents to contribute to the preservation and development of affordable, environmentally healthy housing and community/ cultural spaces so that the Cooper Square area remains racially, economically and culturally diverse. The Cooper Square Committee provides housing counseling to residents in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Many of the tenants we counsel are rent-stabilized tenants who face eviction. We also assists tenants who are facing harassment or disrepair in their building in forming tenant associations. The issue of preserving the protections of rent-stabilization and keeping tenants in their homes impacts hundreds of our clients. Dated: February 5 , 2018 New York, New York Steve Herrick Executive Director Cooper Square Committee 61 E 4th Street New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-8210 Fax: (646) 602-2260 Statement of Interest of Amicus Curiae Community Action for Safe Apartments (CASA) is a membership driven tenant organizing project of New Settlement Apartments’ that works primarily in the Southwest Bronx. Our mission is to protect and maintain affordable and safe housing through collective action. To do this, we: • Run local campaigns to protect affordable housing and prevent displacement • Organize tenant associations, • Provide monthly tenants’ rights workshops and legal clinics, • Hold regular community building and leadership development programs • Are actively involved in city and state-wide policy campaigns. In 2017, CASA has organized or provided technical assistance to over 90 buildings, which are home to more than 7,000 families. In the last year, over 4,000 tenants have attended our monthly membership meetings, workshops, tenant association meetings, and campaign meetings to develop and advance policy proposals that increase tenant protections and tenant power in the city. Unfortunately, all of the tenants we organize are part ol'CASA because they experience significant issues such as lack of repairs, landlord harassment, and unaffordable housing. Vacancy decontrol has heightened displacement pressures, which has led to tenant push-out and jeopardizes the overall affordability in the community we serve. Already, people can barely afford to live in the Southwest Bronx, Preserving rent- stabilized apartments would help to limit the speculation and harassment that tenants face and enable poor and working class tenants remain in their homes. February 20 1 8 New York, New York Dated: iCn_ Sheila Garcia Director Community Action for Safe Apartments 35 Marcy Place Bronx, NY 10452 Telephone: (718) 716-8000 Statement of Interest of Amicus Curiae Mobilization for Justice, Inc. (formerly MFY Legal Services) envisions a society in which there is equal justice for all. Mobilization for Justice’s mission is to achieve social justice, prioritizing the needs of people who are low-income, disenfranchised or have disabilities. We do this by providing the highest quality direct civil legal assistance, conducting community education and building partnerships, engaging in policy advocacy, and bringing impact litigation. Mobilization for Justice provides assistance to more than 10,000 New Yorkers each year, benefitting 20,000. For more than 50 years we have fought to preserve affordable housing in New York City by engaging in legislative policy advocacy, providing outreach and education, and representing rent-regulated tenants in state and federal courts. Because of the far-reaching implications of this matter for its clients, Mobilization for Justice has a substantial interest in its outcome. Dated: February 5, 2018 New York, New York JeanettelZelhof Executive Director 100 William Street New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 417-3727 Facsimile: (212) 417-3890 7 (