dismissal in favor of DHCR is inappropriate. Invoking primary jurisdiction is appropriate in only
two circumstances, neither of which is present here: (a) where the claim is already pending
before the administrative agency; or (b) where an unusually complicated factual or legal issue is
presented to the court.
Determination
For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.
Discussion
RSL Claims
The first three causes of action are for violation of the RSL. The first cause of action is for
defendants' violation of RSL § 26-512, by allegedly charging plaintiffs and the proposed
Class members market rate rents or rents at rates otherwise exceeding the legal regulated rent for
their apartments. Allegedly, they did so by: (1) altering and misrepresenting the legal regulated
rent records provided to tenants to justify charging higher initial rents; (2) inflating or
misrepresenting the amount of IAIs that were completed; or (3) using such false information to
increase rents or deregulate apartments that should remain rent stabilized.
The second cause of action, for violation of RSL § 26-512, alleges that defendants
entered into leases with plaintiffs and members of the proposed Sub-Class by misrepresenting the
amount of rent defendants were legally entitled to collect, or falsely representing that their
apartments were not subject to rent stabilization.
The third cause of action seeks declaratory relief determining: (1) the apartments of plaintiffs
and members of the Sub-Class are subject to the RSL and RSC and any purported deregulation
by defendants was invalid as a matter of law; (2) plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are
each entitled to a rent-stabilized lease in a lease form promulgated by DHCR; (3) the amount of