SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX EMMANUEL YUSUF, ISSAKA MOHAMMED, ABDULAI SALLAH, EDGAR AQUINO, AUGUSTINA FRIMPOMA, SARA AGYEDUMWAH, PAULINO JIMENEZ, ZAINAB FAROUK, HENRIETTA GYIMAH, CHARLES ACHEAMPONG, MARCELO CHARLES, WILBERFORCE YEBOAH, LINDA JOHNS, AHMED GADO, JOSEPHINE ALLSOP, LESLIE SANDERS, CHARLEY ANETOR, MARJORIE KING, SONIA CRAWFORD, UNIQUE PHINAZEE, ANA GUZMAN, MARIA TRINIDAD, ADAMU BATURE, DAISY MALDONADO MUSAH FUSEINI. Plaintiffs, -against? SHREE GANESH BRONX, LLC, DHIREN MEHTA, as principal, and LALITA SINGH, as managing agent. Defendants. AMENDED COMPLAINT Index No. 251206/15 Plaintiff Designates Bronx County as Place of Trial Plaintiffs EMMANUEL YUSUF, ISSAKA MOHAMMED, ABDULAI SALLAH, EDGAR AQUINO, AUGUSTINA FRIMPOMA, SARA AGYEDUMWAH, PAULINO JIMENEZ, ZAINAB FAROUK, HENRIETTA GYIMAH, CHARLES ACHEAMPONG, MARCELO CHARLES, WILBERFORCE YEBOAH, LINDA JOHNS, AHMED GADO, JOSEPHINE ALLSOP, LESLIE SANDERS, CHARLEY ANETOR, MARJORIE KING, SONIA CRAWFORD, UNIQUE PHINAZEE, ANA GUZMAN, MARIA TRINIDAD, ADAMU BATURE, DAISY MALDONADO MUSAH FUSEINI, through counsel, hereby set forth the following Amended Complaint pursuant to C.P.L.R. Rule 3025 and C.P.L.R. 1003: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. The Plaintiffs, current tenants of 1111 Gerard Avenue, Bronx, New York, 10452 (hereinafter the ?subject building?) bring this action seeking a declaratory judgment that their apartments are, will be, and at all relevant times have been subject to the Rent Stabilization Code (R.S.C.) and relevant laws, reforming the existing lease to provide that the premises are subject to the R.S.C., declaring that Plaintiffs are entitled to all the bene?ts and protections of the R.S.C. and relevant laws, and establishing the legal regulated rent for Plaintiffs? apartments, as well as monetary judgments for rent overcharges. 2. Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, has unlawfully raised Plaintiffs? rents in excess of the amounts permitted by the R.S.C. and relevant laws. Defendants Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, and its predecessors-in?interests of the subject building have improperly calculated the rents since 1991 in violation of Section 2521.1(g) of the R.S.C.. Instead of calculating the rental increases based on the actual rent paid in 1991, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, and its predecessors?in-interests unlawfully registered ?ctional ?legal? rents above what they were legally entitled to charge or register. Similarly, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, and its predecessors-in-interests have increased rents above the actual legal rent set forth in Plaintiffs? leases. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment, pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001, setting forth their legal rents and an award of damages for rent paid in excess of the legal permissible rent. 3. Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, has engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Section 349 of the General Business Law because it has illegally provided leases to Plaintiffs indicating that their apartments are no longer rent-stabilized and circulated letters to Plaintiffs informing them that their apartments would no longer be subject to rent stabilization. 2 Such conduct is an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of Section 349 of the General Business Law. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff EMMANUEL YUSUF is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 3F. Mr. Yusuf has resided in apartment 3F since 1997. 5. Plaintiff ISSAKA MOHAMMED is a tenant at the subject building and currently resides in apartment 2K. Mr. Mohammed has resided in the subject building since 1991. 6. Plaintiff ABDULAI SALLAH is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 5E. Mr. Sallah has resided in apartment 5E since approximately 2000. 7. Plaintiff EDGAR AQUINO is a tenant at the subject building and currently resides in apartment 3T. Mr. Aquino has resided in apartment 3T since 2010. 8. Plaintiff AUGUSTINA FRIMPONA is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 3E. Ms. Frimpona has resided in apartment 3E since 1991. 9. Plaintiff SARA AGYEDUMWAH is a tenant at the subject building and currently resides in apartment 2L. Ms. Agyedumwah has resided in apartment 2L since 2004. 10. Plaintiff PAULINO JIMENEZ is a tenant at the subject building and currently resides in apartment 4C. Mr. Jimenez has resided in apartment 4C since 1995. Mr. Jiminez previously resided in another apartment in the subject building from 1991 until 1995. 11. Plaintiff ZAINAB FAROUK is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 2J. Ms. Farouk has resided in the subject building since approximately 2005. 12. Plaintiff HENRIETTA GYIMAH is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 4D. Ms. Gyimah has resided in apartment 4D since 1991. 3 13. Plaintiff CHARLES ACHEAMPONG is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment BB. Mr. Acheampong has resided in apartment BB since 1991. 14. Plaintiff MARCELO CHARLES is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 4L. Mr. Charles has resided in apartment 4L since 1991. 15. Plaintiff WILBEFORE YEBOAH is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment BD. Mr. Yeboah has resided in apartment BD since approximately 2006. 16. Plaintiff LINDA JOHNS is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 6D. Ms. Johns has resided in apartment 6D since 1991. 17. Plaintiff AHMED GADO is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 6L. Mr. Gado has resided in apartment 6L since 2001. 18. Plaintiff AHMED GADO is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 6L. Mr. Gado has resided in apartment 6L since 2001. 19. Plaintiff JOSEPHINE ALLSOP is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 6K. Ms. Allsop has resided in apartment 6K since 1991. 20. Plaintiff LESLIE SANDERS is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 5H. Ms. Sanders has resided in apartment 5H since 1991. 21. Plaintiff CHARLEY ANETOR is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 5G. Mr. Anetor has resided in apartment 5G since 2012. 22. Plaintiff MARJORIE KING is a tenant at the subject building and resides in apartment 1E. Ms. King has resided in apartment 1E since 1991. 23. Plaintiff SONIA CRAWFORD is a tenant in the subject building and resides in apartment 1L since around 1993. 24. Plaintiff UNIQUE PHINAZEE is a tenant in the subject building and resides in apartment 3J since around 2005. 25. Plaintiff ANA GUZMAN is a tenant in the subject building and has resided in apartment BC since around 1991. 26. Plaintiff MARIA TRINIDAD is a tenant in the subject building and has resided in apartment 5B since around 2000. 27. Plaintiff ADAMU BATURE is a tenant in the subject building and has resided in apartment 2T since around 2008. 28. Plaintiff DAISY MALDONADO is a tenant in the subject building and has resided in apartment 5U since around 1991. 29. Plaintiff MUSAH FUSEINI is a tenant in the subject building and has resided in apartment 38 since around 2009. 30. Defendant SHREE GANESH BRONX, LLC is a domestic limited-liability company with its principal place of business at 41 Bay Ave, East Moriches, NY 11940. 31. Defendant DHIREN MEHTA is a principal of SHREE GANESH BRONX, LLC. 32. Defendant LALITA SINGH is the managing agent of the subject building. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 33. This Court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive and declaratory relief under C.P.L.R. 3001. 34. Pursuant to C.P.L.R. 503(a) and 507, venue is proper in the County of the Bronx because it is the county where the Plaintiffs reside and Where the subject building is situated. STATEMENT OF FACTS The 421?a Program 35. Pursuant to Section 421-a of the Real Property Tax Law 42l-a (R.P.T.L.) (hereinafter referred to as the ?421-a program?) real estate owners of housing accommodations in major cities in New York State can seek tax credits for investing in affordable housing, new construction, and other real estate development. See R.P.T.L. 421-a. 36. Speci?cally, in the City of New York, the local Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development (HPD) has promulgated rules and regulations in order for local landlords to seek tax bene?ts under the 42l-a program. 28 R.C.N.Y. 6-02. 37. Pursuant to HPD regulations, local landlords are eligible for tax bene?ts from ten to twenty-?ve years. 28 R.C.N.Y. 38. Pursuant to HPD regulations, any landlord who receives bene?ts under the 42l-a program in New York City must maintain the subject building under the rent-stabilization laws 28 R.C.N.Y. and regulations for the duration of the tax-bene?t period. Speci?cally, any landlord participating in the program must abide by the R.S.C. as promulgated 'by? New m1? sate HomEs_ahd community?Rana?(hefei?a?a "fon?erly? Moan?a; DHCR) and any other relevant laws and regulations. This means that the tenants in the subject building would receive the protections afforded to rent-stabilized tenants in the City of New York, including inter alia the right to renew their leases each year and the right to rent increases as set forth by the Rent Guidelines Board (RGB). 9 N.Y.C.R.R. 2522.2. 39. Additionally, the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (E.T.P.A.) provides that a landlord may charge any tenant of a rent?stabilized unit an amount of rent up to the legal regulated rent. E.T.P.A. 40. The E.T.P.A and R.S.C. also provide that the landlord must register the initial rent charged to the initial tenant of the rent?stabilized unit, and must annually register the legal regulated rent thereafter. 9 N.Y.C.R.R. 2528.1; 2528.3. 41. After registering the initial rent, the landlord may only increase the rent in accordance with Section 2522 of the R.S.C. 9 N.Y.C.R.R. 2522.1. 42. Should the landlord charge less than the legal regulated rent, such amount may be set forth as a ?preferential rent? in the lease and registered along with the legal regulated rent. 9 N.Y.C.R.R. 2521.2. In that case, the landlord would be charging less than the legal regulated rent, but reserve its rights to charge the legal regulated rent in a future lease agreement. 43. With respect to rent-stabilized units enrolled in the 42l-a program, HCR regulations state that any rent stabilized unit that is rent?stabilized under the 421-a program must be initially registered at the rent charged the ?rst tenant in the subject unit. Section 2521.1(g) of the R.S.C. states that ?the initial legal regulated rent for a housing accommodation constructed pursuant to section 421-a of the Real Property Tax Law shall be in the initial aab'usted rent charged and paid. . . 9 N.Y.C.R.R. 2521.1(g) (emphasis added). In other words, the R.S.C. speci?cally prohibits the registration of a higher, legal regulated rent when a lower rent was actually charged to the initial tenant in a 421?a unit. 44. Once the tax bene?ts expire, a landlord may seek to ?deregulate? the subject building; however, HPD regulations state the landlord may only ?deregulate? the subject building provided that ?each lease and renewal thereof for such unit for the tenant entitled to a lease at the time of such deregulation contained a notice in at least twelve (12) point type informing such tenant that the unit shall be subject to deregulation upon the expiration of such bene?t period and stated the approximate date on which such bene?t period was expected to expire.? 28 R.C.N.Y. (emphasis added). 1111 Gerard Ave. Bronx. NY 10452 and Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC 45. Upon information and belief, around 1991, the initial owner of the subject building began participating in the 421-a program for a period of twenty-five years commencing that same year. 46. Section 2521.1(g) of the R.S.C. provides that the initial legal regulated rent for a 421-a housing accommodation is the ?initial adjusted rent charged and paid,? prohibiting an initial preferential rent. 47. In 1991, Mid?Bronx Housing Management Company as agent for C. V. Bronx Associates, L.P, the owner of the subject building at the time, offered initial rent stabilized leases to Plaintiffs or previous tenants which charged a ?preferential? rent below the purported legal? maximum rent registered with Housing and Community Renewal. Accordingly, the initial legal regulated rents registered by the previous owners were incorrect and in violation of the R.S.C.. The legal rents that should have been registered with HCR in 1991 were the actual rents paid by the tenants. Instead the actual rent was mischaracterized as ?preferential? rents. 48. Upon information and belief, the basis of which is a review of the land records publicly available on the New York City Department of Finance website, in 2010 Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC purchased the building from Republic Gerard LLC. 49. Since taking ownership, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC has illegally renewed leases at rates above the legal increases permitted by the E.T.P.A. and R.S.C. 50. Pursuant to Section 2522.1 of the R.S.C., the legal regulated rent may only be increased by the manner speci?ed in Section 2522 of the R.S.C.. Such increases include for the annual adjustments provided by the Rent Guidelines Board. 9 N.Y.C.R.R. 2522.2. 51. However, as detailed below for each Plaintiff, subsequent renewal leases have increased the rent well-above any adjustment that was provided through 2010. As a result, Defendant Shree Ganesh, Bronx, LLC has collected rents to which it is not legally entitled to. 52. These unlawful rent increases include but are not limited to the increases Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC took in 2010, in which the legal regulated rents were increased for each Plaintiff by amounts that at times exceeded 60% of the then?current legal regulated rent. This amount is in excess of the 2.25% (one year) and 4.5% (two year) renewal increases established by the Rent Guidelines Board for the period from October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011. 53. Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC is also seeking to destabilize the units in the building without having complied with applicable HPD regulations. 54. Neither Defendants nor their predecessors have provided the requisite notice of any limitation on their rent-stabilized status as required by R.P.T.L. and HPD regulations; therefore, they are precluded from deregulating Plaintiffs? apartments at the end of the tax abatement period. 55. Despite this legal bar to destabilization, in 2014 and 2015 Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC sent letters to Plaintiffs informing them that their apartments were going to be ?de- stabilized? as of 2015, 2016, 2017, or 2018. 56. Additionally, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC has already claimed that some Plaintiffs have already lost their rent?stabilized status, and has offered renewal leases that do not 9 provide rent-stabilization protections and unlawfully increase the rent above the Rent Guidelines Board limits. EMMANUEL YUSUF 57. Plaintiff EMANNUEL YUSUF is a tenant-of?record for the apartment in 3F. Mr. Yusuf has resided in apartment 3F since 1997. 58. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 3F should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 59. In his initial lease in 1997, the legal regulated rent is listed as $463.67 per month; however, a prior owner registered the actual rent paid as $463.67 and registered the alleged legal regulated rent as $759.67. 60. In 2007, another prior owner, Republic Gerard LLC, renewed Mr. Yusuf?s lease for 2 years at the rent of $607.20. The HCR rent registration lists this amount as the legal regulated rent; however, in 2010, the legal regulated rent was adjusted to $1,028.70 representing an increase of $369.89, or an increase of 56%. 61. Until June 30, 2015, the rent for Mr. Yusufs apartment was $706.45 per month. 62. On July 1, 2015, Mr. Yusuf?s rent was illegally increased to $1,126.64 for 2 years. 63. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, and appropriate leases had been offered, the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $895.43 per month. 10 64. Upon information and belief, Mr. Yusuf received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 65. Mr. Yusuf has not received the requisite notice in each of his renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment could be subject to deregulation. ISSAKA MOHAMMED 66. Plaintiff ISSAKA MOHAMMED is the tenant of apartment 2K and has lived in the apartment since 1991. 67. When Ms. Mohammed moved into 2K in 1991, she paid a rent of $407.00. 68. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 69. In or around 2009, Ms. Mohammed renewed her lease for two years at an alleged legal regulated rent of $724.52. 70. Subsequently, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, renewed Ms. Mohammed?s lease in 2011 at an alleged legal rent of $1,274.04. This constitutes a 43% increase, which was well-above the 7.25% increase permitted by the Rent Guidelines Board for two-year rent renewals that year. 71. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, the maximum legal?regulated rent in 2015 would be $797.18 per month. 72. Upon information and belief, Ms. Mohammed received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of 2016 and 2018. ll 73. Ms. Mohammed has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that her apartment would be subject to deregulation. ABDULAI SALLAH 74. Plaintiff ABDULAI SALLAH has resided in apartment 5E since in or around 2000. 75. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 5E should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 76. In 2008, Republic Gerard LLC renewed Mr. Sallah?s lease at an alleged legal regulated rent of $737.56 for two years. 77. Subsequently, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, renewed Mr. Sallah?s lease in 2010 at an alleged legal rent of $1,1 13.61 and took increases based on that rent thereafter. 78. This increase is almost $400.00 above the previous rent. 79. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, then the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $877.41 per month yet Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC is currently charging Mr. Sallah $1,160.00 per month. 80. Upon information and belief, Mr. Sallah received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 81. Mr. Sallah has not received the requisite notice in each of his renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment would be subject to deregulation. EDGAR AQUINO 12 82. Plaintiff EDGAR AQUINO is the tenant of apartment 3T and has resided in the apartment since on or around 2010 and became tenant-of?record when his former partner moved out in 2014. 83. In 2014, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC offered Mr. Aquino an initial one- year lease at $777.10. 84. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 3T should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $306.00, not the $489.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 85. Upon information and belief, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC now claims that since the beginning of Mr. Aquino?s tenancy, his apartment has been de?regulated and is no longer rent-stabilized. 86. In or around 2015, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC offered Mr. Aquino a renewal lease of $850.00 after his last lease with a rent of $777.10 expired. Such an increase exceeds the normal rent increases permitted by the Rent Guidelines Board if the apartment is rent-stabilized. 87. In 2014, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC commenced a non-payment proceeding against Mr. Aquino in Bronx Housing Court under Index No. 44642/2014. AUGUSTINA FRIMPONA 88. Plaintiff AUGUSTINA FRIMPOMA is a tenant in 3E and has resided in the apartment since on or around 1994. 89. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 3E should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the first lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 13 90. Upon information and belief, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, and the prior owners have taken increases based on the higher alleged legal regulated rent of $703.00. 91. When Ms. Frimpoma moved into the apartment in 1994, her lease agreement provided for a rent of $448.72 per month. 92. Upon information and belief, in almost all of the subsequent leases, there was no provision providing for a preferential rent or distinguishing the rent actually charged from the alleged legal maximum rent. 93. Upon information and belief, in 2014, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC offered Plaintiff Augustina Frimpoma a renewal lease with an alleged legal maximum rent of $1,294.52, which is above the amount provided in her prior leases and the HCR rent registration. 94. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $766.27. 95. Ms. Frimpoma has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that her apartment would be subject to deregulation. 96. Upon information and belief, Ms. Frimpona received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of 2016 and 2018. 97. In 2015, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC commenced a non-payment proceeding against Ms. Frimpoma in Bronx Housing Court under Index No. 27964/2015. SARA AGYEDUMWAH 98. Plaintiff SARA AGYEDUMWAH has resided in apartment 2L since 2004. 14 99. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 2L should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 100. When Plaintiff Sara Agyedumwah moved into the apartment in 2004, she rented it for an alleged legal rent of $670.74. 101. That same year, the owner of the building registered the apartment unit at an alleged legal rent of $992.01. 102. In 2014, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC registered the apartment unit of Plaintiff Sara Agyedumwah at an alleged legal rent of $1,241.57 and began charging a preferential rent of $1,170.51 per month. 103. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $820.46. 104. Ms. Agyedumwah has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that her apartment would be subject to deregulation. 105. Upon information and belief, Ms. Agyedumwah received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of 2016 and 2018. 106. In 2015, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, commenced a non-payment proceeding against Ms. Agyedumwah in Bronx Housing Court under Index No. 27962/2015. PAULINO JIMENEZ 107. Plaintiff PAULINO JIMENEZ is a co-tenant-of?record for the apartment in 4C. 108. Upon information and belief, he moved into apartment BT of the subject building in 1991 and had an initial lease of $306.00. 15 109. In 1995, he moved into apartment 4C of the subject building paying a rent of $450.82, but the alleged legal-regulated rent was $746.82. 110. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 4C should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 111. In 2008, Mr. Jimenez signed a renewal lease which alleged a legal?regulated rent of $631.94 per month. 112. In 2010, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC unlawfully increased the legal- regulated rent to $1,137.44 per month and has increased the legal-regulated rent to $1,236.16 as of2014. 113. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, the maximum legal?regulated rent in 2015 would be $773.87 per month. 114. However, Mr. Jimenez is currently paying $1,000.15 as a preferential rent and Defendant is claiming a legal-regulated rent of $1,270.15 per month. 115. Upon information and belief, Mr. Jimenez has received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of 2016 and 2018. 116. Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, has also charged Mr. Jimenez for repairs and replacement appliances in excess of the legal-regulated rent and in Violation of the Rent Stabilization Code. 1 17. Plaintiff Paulino Jimenez has not received the requisite notice in each of his renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment could be subject to deregulation. ZAINAB AROUK l6 118. Plaintiff ZAINAB FAROUK lives in apartment 2.1. Ms. Farouk has resided in apartment 2J since on or around 2005. 119. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 2] should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the first lease, which was allegedly $342.00 according to the HCR rent history, not the $560.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 120. Around 2008, Ms. Farouk received and signed a lease stating that the legal regulated rent was set at $649.49. The legal regulated rent was registered at the same amount that year. 121. But in 2010, the alleged legal regulated rent was increased to $917.79 from $649.49, which amounted to an illegal increase in the legal regulated rent of $392.47, or 60% of the legal regulated rent, which was well?above the 2.25% increase permitted that year for one? year renewals. 122. In 2014, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, registered an alleged legal regulated rent of $1,060.62 for the apartment. 123. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, then the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $757.01 per month. 124. Upon information and belief, Ms. Farouk received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 125. Ms. Farouk has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that her apartment would be subject to deregulation. l7 126. In 2015, Defendant Shree Ganesh, LLC commenced a nonpayment proceeding against Ms. Zainab in Bronx Housing Court under Index No. 32132/2015. HENRIETTA GYIMAH 127. Plaintiff HENRIETTA GYIMAH has resided in apartment 4D since 1991. 128. When Ms. Gyimah moved into the apartment, the initial owner of the building charged her a rent of $407.00, but registered the alleged legal regulated rent at $703.00. 129. In 2008, she signed a lease setting forth an alleged legal regulated rent of $628.60 per month. 130. In 2009, she signed a lease setting forth a legal regulated rent of $613.60. 131. Then, in 2010, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, provided a lease setting forth the alleged legal regulated rent at $1,178.07 per month, which marked a 52% rent increase. 132. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $782.35 per month. 133. Upon information and belief, Ms. Gyimah received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 134. Ms. Gyimah has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that her apartment would be subject to deregulation. CHARLES ACHEAMPONG 135. Plaintiff CHARLES ACHEAMPONG is the tenant of apartment BB and has lived in apartment BB since 1991. 136. When Mr. Acheampong moved into BB in 1991, he paid a rent of $407.00. 18 137. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment BB should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 138. Upon information and belief, that belief based on the HCR rent registration, in or around 2006, Republic Gerard LLC, a prior owner, renewed Mr. Acheampong?s lease at an alleged legal regulated rent of $615.48. 139. Upon information and belief, that belief based on the HCR rent registration, in or around 2008, Republic Gerard LLC, a prior owner renewed Mr. Acheampong?s lease at an alleged legal regulated rent of $650.87. The legal regulated rent was initially registered in 2009 as $650.87, but then later was adjusted to $1124.19 in 2010 representing an increase of $473.32, or an increase of more than 72%. 140. In or around 2010, Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC renewed Mr. Acheampong?s lease at a rent of $710.87. The lease lists this amount as the legal regulated rent. However, the rent registration lists $710.87 as a preferential rent and the alleged legal regulated rent as $1,184.19. 141. In 2014, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC offered Mr. Acheampong a 2?year renewal lease in the amount of $1,050.00. 142. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $797.22 per month. 143. Upon information and belief, Mr. Acheampong received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of 2016 and 2018. 19 144. Mr. Acheampong has not received the requisite notice in each of his renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment would be subject to deregulation. MARCELO CHARLES 145. Plaintiff MARCELO CHARLES is the tenant in apartment 4L and has lived in apartment 4L since 1991. 146. When Mr. Charles moved into apartment 4L, he paid a rent of $407.00. 147. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 4L should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the alleged legal regulated rent in 1991. 148. In or around 2008, Republic Gerard LLC, a prior owner, renewed Mr. Charles?s lease for 2 years at the rent of $707.75. The legal regulated rent was initially registered in 2009 as $707.75 but then later was adjusted to $1160.68 in 2010, representing an increase of $452.83, or an increase of 64%. 149. In 2010, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, renewed Mr. Charles?s lease for 2 years at rent of $739.60. The lease lists this amount as the legal regulated rent. However, the HCR rent registration lists this rent as a preferential rent and that the alleged legal regulated rent as $1,212.91. 150. In 2013, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC renewed Mr. Charles?s lease for 2 years at the rate of $840.02. Both the renewal lease and the rent registration states that the legal regulated rent is $1,359.19. 151. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $782.35 per month. 20 152. Upon information and belief, Mr. Charles received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 153. Mr. Charles has not received the requisite notice in each of his renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment would be subject to deregulation. WILBERFORCE YEBOAH 154. Plaintiff WILBERFORCE YEBOAH has resided in apartment BD since approximately on or around 2006. 155. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment BD should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the first lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the alleged legal regulated rent in 1991. 156. Upon information and belief, that belief being based on the HCR rent registration, when Plaintiff Wilberforce Yeboah moved into the apartment in 2006, a prior owner offered him a 2-year lease at the rent of $800.23. The registration shows the prior owner registered the legal regulated rent in 2007 and 2008 as $1,096.23. 157. Upon infonnation and belief, that belief based on the HCR rent registration, in 2008, Republic Gerard LLC, a prior owner, renewed Mr. Yeboah?s lease for 2 years at a rent of $846.24. The legal regulated rent was initially registered in 2009 as $846.24 but then later was adjusted to $1,228.81 in 2010, representing an increase of $382.57, or an increase of 45%. 158. In 2014, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC registered apartment BD as having an alleged legal regulated rent of $1375.73 and charging Mr. Yeboah a preferential rent of $950.65. 21 159. In 2015, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC offered Mr. Yeboah a renewal lease at a l-year rate of $1,198.57 or a 2-year rate of $1,285.07. The renewal leases state that the alleged legal regulated rent is either $1,445.07 or $1,470.11. 160. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $1085.37 per month. 161. Upon information and belief, Mr. Yeboah received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 162. Mr. Yeboah has not received the requisite notice in each of his renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment would be subject to deregulation. 163. In 2015, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, has commenced a non?payment proceeding against Mr. Yeboah in Bronx Housing Court under Index No. 32142/ 15. LINDA JOHNS 164. Plaintiff Linda Johns is the tenant in apartment 6D and has lived in apartment 6D since 1991. When Ms. Johns moved into apartment 6D, she paid a rent of $407.00. 165. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 6D should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. The subsequent renewal leases in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2008 and 2010 list the legal regulated rent and the rent being offered as one and the same. However, the legal regulated rent registered with HCR during this time period was signi?cantly higher, approximately $300 higher each lease term. 22 166. In 2006, a prior owner, Republic Gerard LLC, offered Ms. Johns a 2-year renewal lease in the amount of $634.72 beginning in January 2007. Both the 2007 and 2008 HCR rent registration and the renewal lease lists this amount as the legal regulated rent. 167. In 2008, Republic Gerard LLC, renewed Ms. Johns? lease for 2 years at the rent of $719.72. Both the renewal lease and the 2009 HCR rent registration list this amount as the legal regulated rent. In 2010, the legal regulated rent was adjusted to $1,167.11 representing an increase of $446.39, or an increase of 62%. 168. In 2010, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, renewed Ms. Johns? lease for 2 years listing both the legal regulated rent and the actual rent charged at $739.61. However, in 2011 Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC registered the legal regulated rent at the rate or $1,219.62 and registered the rent of $739.61 as a preferential rent. 169. In 2012, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, renewed Ms. Johns? lease for 2 years listing the alleged legal regulated rent as $1,268.40 and the actual rent charged at $779.60. 170. In 2014, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, renewed Ms. Johns? lease for 2 years listing the alleged legal regulated rent as $1,303.28 and the actual rent charged at $1,103.28. 171. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, then the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $786.02 per month. 172. Upon information and belief, Ms. Johns received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 173. Ms. Johns has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that her apartment would be subject to deregulation. 23 AHMED GADO 174. Plaintiff AHMED GADO is the tenant in apartment 6L and has resided in that apartment since 2001. 175. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 6L should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the alleged legal regulated rent in 1991. 176. Upon information and belief, that belief being based on the HCR rent registration, when Mr. Gado moved into the apartment in 2001, a prior owner offered him a 2?year lease at the rent of $489.32. 177. In 2007, Mr. Gado renewed his lease for 2 years at the rate of $717.61. The lease and the HCR rent history list this amount as the legal regulated rent. 178. Mr. Gado renewed his lease in 2010 for two years for at a rent of $794.90. The lease lists this amount as the legal regulated rent. However, in 2011, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC registered the legal regulated rent as $1,114.10 along with a preferential rent of $794.89. 179. Upon that lease?s expiration in 2012, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, increased the legal regulated rent to $1,299.72 and offered a preferential rent of $1,050.59. 180. Now, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, has offered Mr. Gado a renewal lease in which it wants to increase the legal regulated rent to $1,312.72 for a one?year lease and $1,335.46 for a two?year lease with a preferential rent of $1,150.00 or $1,200.00 respectively. 181. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, then the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $889.06 per month. 24 182. Upon information and belief, Mr. Gado received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 183. Mr. Gado has not received the requisite notice in each of his renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment would be subject to deregulation. 184. In 2015, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC commenced a non?payment proceeding against Mr. Gado, in Bronx Housing Court under Index No. 27963/2015. JOSEPHINE ALLSOP 185. Plaintiff JOSEPHINE ALLSOP is the tenant in apartment 6K and has lived in that apartment since 1991. 186. When Ms. Allsop moved into apartment 6K, she paid a rent of $407.00. 187. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 6K should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the alleged legal regulated rent in 1991. 188. In or around 2008, Republic Gerard LLC, a prior owner, renewed Ms. Allsop?s lease for 2 years at the rent of $687.15. This amount that was registered as the legal regulated rent. In 2011, the legal regulated rent was adjusted to $1,181.09 in 2010, representing an increase of $493.94 or 42%. 189. Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC continued to take increases based on this alleged legal regulated rent while offering Ms. Allsop a preferential rent that was hundreds of dollars lower. 190. In 2011, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, renewed Ms. Allsop?s lease for 1 year listing both the legal regulated rent as $1,238.34 and the actual rent charged at $647.24. 25 191. In 2013, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, renewed Ms. Allsop?s rent for 1 year listing the alleged legal regulated rent as $1,310.48 and the actual rent charged at $691.31. 192. In 2014, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, renewed Ms. Allsop?s lease for 1 year listing the alleged legal regulated rent as $1,349.53 and the actual rent charged at $850.00. This increase in the actual rent charge represents an increase of nearly 19%. 193. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $793.79 per month. 194. Upon information and belief, Ms. Allsop received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 195. Ms. Allsop has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that her apartment would be subject to deregulation. 196. In, 2015. Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, commenced a non-payment proceeding against Ms. Allsop, in Bronx Housing Court under Index No. 32142/ 15. LESLIE SANDERS 197. Plaintiff LESLIE SANDERS is the tenant in apartment 5H and has lived in apartment 5H since 1991. 198. When Ms. Sanders moved into apartment 5H, she paid a rent of $558.00. 199. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 5H should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $558.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 26 200. The subsequent renewal leases in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 all list the legal regulated rent and the rent being offered as one and the same. 201. From 1998 to 2009, the prior owners, Mid?Bronx Housing Management Co. and then Republic Gerard LLC, registered the legal regulated rent at an amount consistent with the rent listed in Ms. Sanders? renewal leases. 202. In 2010, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, renewed Ms. Sanders? lease for 1 year listing the legal regulated rent and the actual rent charged at $951.60. However, that same year Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC registered the legal regulated rent at $1,179.25 and listed the rent of $951.60 as a preferential rent. This represents an unlawful increase in the legal regulated rent of $227.65 or 23%. 203. Beginning in 2011, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, began listing a higher legal regulated rent on Ms. Sanders? leases and designated the lower rent on both the renewal leases and in the rent registration as a preferential rent. 204. In 2014, on the most recent renewal lease Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, renewed Sanders? lease for 1 year listing the legal regulated rent as $1,340.33 and listing $1,178.22 as a preferential rent. 205. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, then the maximum legal-regulated rent in 2015 would be $1,072.27 per month. 206. Ms. Sanders?s original lease and several subsequent renewal leases contain a rider stating that the owner received a tax bene?t under the 421-a program but the renewal leases beginning as early as 1997 failed to include any kind of notice per R.P.T.L. and HPD regulations that the apartment would be subject to rent deregulation. 27 207. Upon information and belief, Ms. Sanders received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. CHARLIE ANETOR 208. Plaintiff CHARLIE ANETOR is a tenant in apartment 5G and has resided in the apartment since 2012. 209. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 5G should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the first lease, which was $55.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 210. When he moved into the apartment in 2012, Defendant claimed the apartment had a rent of $1,556.82 per month and charged him a preferential rent of $1,300.00 per month. 211. Subsequently, the preferential rent has increased from $1,352.00 in 2013 to the present $1,365.52. 212. The legal?regulated rents have increased to $1,619.09 in 2013 and to the present $1,635.28. 213. But when recalculated based on what should have been charged in 1991 and based on the rent history, the proper legal?regulated rent should currently only be $1,152.78 per month, which is below the present $1,365.52 being charged. 214. Mr. Anetor has not received the requisite notice in each of his renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment would be subject to deregulation. 215. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anetor received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 28 MARJORIE KING 216. Plaintiff MARJOIRE KING is the tenant in apartment 1E and has lived in apartment 1E since 1991. 217. When Ms. King moved into apartment 1E, she paid a rent of $407.00. 218. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 1E should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the ?rst lease, which was $407.00, not the $703.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 219. Upon information and belief, that belief based on the HCR rent registration, in 2008, Republic Gerard LLC, a prior owner, renewed Ms. King?s lease for 1 year at a rent of $661.07. The legal rent was registered at the same amount. 220. Upon information and belief, that belief based on the HCR rent registration, in 2008, Republic Gerard LLC, renewed Ms. King?s lease for 1 year at a rent of $681.90. The legal regulated rent was initially registered in 2009 as $681.90 but then later was adjusted to $1,216.81 in 2010, representing an increase of $535.91, or 78%. 221. Upon information and belief, that belief based on the HCR rent registration, in 2014, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC registered apartment 1E as having an alleged legal regulated rent of $1,369.734 and charging Ms. King a preferential rent of $772.02. 222. In September 2014, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC renewed Ms. King?s rent at the one year rate of $900.74. The renewal leases state that the alleged legal regulated rent is $1,383.03. 223. Upon information and belief, if the correct rent had been registered in 1991, then the maximum legal-regulated rent for apartment 1E in 2015 would be $767.70 per month. 29 224. Upon information and belief, Ms. King received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 225. Ms. King has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment would be subject to deregulation. SONIA CRAWFORD 226. Plaintiff SONIA CRAWFORD is a tenant in the subject building and resides in apartment 1L since around 1993. 227. Pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. the legal maximum rent for apartment 1L should have been set at the rate actually charged and paid in the first lease, which was $433.46, not the $703.00 that was registered as the legal regulated rent in 1991. 228. In July 2015, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC renewed Ms. Crawford?s rent at the two year rate of $1050.00. The renewal leases state that the alleged legal regulated rent is 1 ,3 10.55. 229. Upon information and belief, had the correct rent been registered, the maximum legal-regulated rent for the apartment would only be $809.23 through August 31, 2015. 230. Upon information and belief, Ms. Crawford received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of 2016 and 2018. 231. Upon information and belief, Ms. Crawford has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment would be subject to deregulation. UNIQUE PHINAZEE 232. Plaintiff UNIQUE PHINAZEE is a tenant in the subject building and resides in apartment 3J since around 2005. 233. When she moved into the apartment in 2004, the legal-regulated rent in her lease was $577.28 per month. 234. The legal?regulated rent was then increased by the renewal increases provided by the RGB thereafter. 235. Upon information and belief, in 2011, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC raised the legal-regulated rent from $682.19 to $975.07, an increase that amounted to 43% and exceeded the then-permissible increase of 3.75% provided by the RGB. 236. When the rents are properly re-calculated pursuant to the R.S.C. and other relevant laws and regulations, the maximum legal?regulated presently should only be $764.45; not $1,045.22 as Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC alleges in the most recent rent registration and renewal lease. 237. Upon information and belief, Ms. Phinazee received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 238. Upon information and belief, Ms. Phinazee has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that her apartment would be subject to deregulation. ANA GUZMAN 239. Plaintiff ANA GUZMAN is a tenant in the subject building has resided in apartment BC since around 1991. 31 240. When Ms. Guzman moved into the apartment in 1991, the legal?regulated rent registered was $703.00 per month, but she actually paid $407.00. 241. Upon information and belief, in 2010, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC raised the legal-regulated rent from $707.75 to $1,114.88, an increase that amounted to well-above the then-permissible increase provided by the RGB. 242. When the rents are properly re?calculated pursuant to the R.S.C. and other relevant laws and regulations, the maximum legal-regulated presently should only be $787.40; not $1,190.93 as Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC alleges in the most recent rent registration and renewal lease. 243. Upon information and belief, Ms. Guzman received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 244. Upon information and belief, Ms. Guzman has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that her apartment would be subject to deregulation. MARIA TRINIDAD 245. Plaintiff MARIA TRINIDAD is a tenant in the subject building and has resided in apartment 5B since around 2000. 246. In 1991, the legal-regulated rent registered was $703.00 per month, but Ms. Trinidad actually paid $407.00. 247. When Ms. Trinidad moved into the apartment in 2000, the legal-regulated rent contracted to was $504.74 per month, but $800.74 was registered as the legal-regulated rent. 32 248. Upon information and belief, in 2010, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC raised the legal-regulated rent from $641.68 to $1,079.06, an increase that amounted to well~above the then?permissible increase provided by the RGB. 249. When the rents are properly re-calculated pursuant to the R.S.C. and other relevant laws and regulations, the maximum legal-regulated presently should only be $779.38; not $1,242.63 as Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC alleges in the most recent rent registration and renewal lease. 250. Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, has also charged Ms. Trinidad for repairs and replacement appliances in excess of the legal-regulated rent and in violation of the Rent Stabilization Code. 251. Upon information and belief, Ms. Trinidad received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 252. Upon information and belief, Ms. Trinidad has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that her apartment would be subject to deregulation. ADAMU BATURE 253. Plaintiff ADAMU BATURE is a tenant in the subject building and has resided in apartment 2T since around 2008. 254. When Mr. Bature moved into the apartment around 2008, the legal? regulated rent for the premises was $727.00. 255. But around 2010, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, raised the legal?regulated rent from $727.00 to $1,040.62, which exceed any permissible increases. 33 256. In the present lease, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, is collecting $919.02 per month, but the maximum legal-regulated rent that could be charged is $819.02 per month. 257. Upon information and belief, Mr. Bature received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 258. Upon information and belief, Mr. Bature has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment would be subject to deregulation. DAISY MALDONADO 259. Plaintiff DAISY MALDONADO is a tenant in the subject premises and has resided in apartment 5U since around 1991. 260. When Ms. Maldonado moved into the apartments, she was charged $407.00 per month, but the alleged legal?regulated rent registered at the time was $703.00 per month. 261. Over the next two decades, the various owners of the premises contracted to lower legal-regulated rents and then registered drastically higher legal?regulated rents. 262. In 2010, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, raised the legal-regulated rent from $611.13 to $1,087.25 per month, which far-exceeded any permissible increases by the RGB. 263. Presently, the legal-regulated rent should not exceed $722.42 per month. 264. Upon information and belief, Ms. Maldonado received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of 2016 and 2018. 34 265. Upon information and belief, Ms. Maldonado has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment would be subject to deregulation. MUSAH USEINI 266. Plaintiff MUSAH USEINI is a tenant in the subject building and has resided in apartment BS since around 2009. 267. In 1991, the initial owner of the subject building rented apartment 38 at an actual rent of $306.00 per month, but illegally registered the legal-regulated rent at $489.00 per month. 268. Upon information and belief, around 2009, when Mr. Fuseini moved in, he had a legal-regulated rent of $691.00, but in 2011, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, increased the legal-regulated rent to $930.52 per month from $691.00. 269. In 2014, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, began charging $905.80 per month, which exceeded any permissible legal-regulated rents. At the time, the maximum rent charged per month could not have exceeded approximately $783.16 per month. 270. Upon information and belief, Mr. Fuseini received several notices from Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC stating that the subject building would no longer be rent stabilized as of2016 and 2018. 271. Upon information and belief, Ms. Fuseini has not received the requisite notice in each of her renewal leases per HPD regulations that his apartment would be subject to deregulation. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 272. The allegations in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference herein. 35 273. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment ?nding that the plaintiffs? apartments are, will continue to remain, and have always been, rent?stabilized and protected by the R.S.C. and relevant laws. 274. Defendants and any prior owners could have deregulated Plaintiffs? apartment pursuant to Section of the R.P.T.L. and HPD regulations only if Defendants and all prior owners of the building had included in each and every lease and renewal lease ?a notice in at least twelve point type informing such tenant that the unit shall become subject to such decontrol upon the expiration of such tax benefit.? R.P.T.L. 275. Defendants have not ful?lled the statutory requirements to deregulated any apartment units because they have not provided any notices in the leases that apartments would cease to be rent-stabilized upon expiration of the tax bene?ts. 276. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that their apartments remain and will be protected by the R.S.C. and relevant laws pursuant to Section 3001 of the NY. C.P.L.R. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction barring Defendants from seeking to deregulate any of the units pending the instant action. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 277. The allegations in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference herein. 278. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that Defendants have unlawfully collected and registered legal rent at HCR above any permitted increases. 279. Defendants and their predecessors in interest have improperly calculated the rent increases permitted by Section 2521.1(g) of the R.S.C., which states, in pertinent part: 36 The initial legal regulated rent for a housing accommodation constructed pursuant to section 42l?a of the Real Property Tax Law shall be in the initial adjusted rent charged and paid. 9 N.Y.C.R.R. 280. In its registrations and renewal leases, Defendants have unlawfully increased the rent above what was actually paid in 1991, when the apartments were initially rented. 281. Defendants have also collected and registered increases above the legal rents set forth in Plaintiffs? leases from around 2010 to the present. 282. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment with respect to their legal rents and any damages due to rent charged in excess of the legal rent permitted by the R.S.C. and relevant laws. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction barring Defendants from collecting rent in excess of the legal regulated rent set forth by the declaratory judgment, including the barring collection through any present or future summary proceeding. 283. Additionally, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, has made necessary repairs and charged Plaintiffs for repair costs and replacement appliances in excess of the legal-regulated rents . AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 284. The allegations in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference herein. 285. Defendants? false, deceptive and misleading representations to Plaintiffs in verbal and written communications constitute deceptive practices in violation of the New York Consumer Protection Law, General Business Law Article 22-A, Section 349. 286. Defendants have provided leases and letters that deceive tenants into believing their apartments are or will be no longer rent-stabilized. Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, has 37 also commenced non-payment proceedings in Bronx Housing Court against some Plaintiffs in which it seeks to collect rent above that permitted by the R.S.C. and other relevant laws and regulations. 287. Additionally, Defendant Shree Ganesh Bronx, LLC, has made necessary repairs and charged Plaintiffs for repair costs and replacement appliances in excess of the legal-regulated I?Cl?llS. WHEREF ORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to issue an Order and Judgment: 21) b) d) a declaratory judgment setting forth that Plaintiffs? apartments are subject to rent- stabilization, the R.S.C., and other relevant laws and regulations pursuant to R.P.T.L. and Section 3001 of the NY. C.P.L.R. in perpetuity; a declaratory judgment setting forth the lawful rent amounts for Plaintiffs and all other tenants in the subject buildings pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. 9 N.Y.C.R.R. 2522.1, and Section 3001 ofthe N.Y. a declaratory judgment declaring that the actions of Defendants are in violation of the General Business Law 349; a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to cease collecting or attempting to collect amounts in excess of the legally collectible rent of Plaintiffs and other tenants in the subject buildings, or from attempting to evict Plaintiffs based on failure to sign leases containing rent in excess of that permitted by law; an award for damages due to violations of the General Business Law 349 as described above; 38 an award, including treble damages and statutory interest, for the unlawful collection of rents above that permitted by Part 2522 of the R.S.C. and other relevant laws and regulations; g) an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs; h) Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: To: Bronx, New York September 25, 2015 Steven Kirkpatrick LEGAL SERVICES NYC Carolyn M. Nortorix/ Esq. Marika Dias, Esq. Ian Davie, Esq. Edward Josephson, Esq. 349 East 149th Street. 10?h Floor Bronx, NY 10451 718?928-3711 :1 By: THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY Seymour James, Attorney-in-Chief Adriene Holder, Attomey?in?Charge, Civil Division Marshall Green, Attorney?in-Charge, Bronx Civil Division Jessica Bellinder, Supervising Attorney Edmund Witter, Of Counsel 260 East 161St Street, 8th ?oor Bronx, NY 10451 T: (646) 340?1937 Counsel for Plaintiffs Belkin Burden Wenig Goldman, LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 (212) 867-4466 Counsel for Defendants 39