## Facts

- Tenants at Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town, large Manhattan apartment complexes, brought a putative class action against current and former owners.
- The properties had been subject to rent stabilization since at least 1974.
- In 1992, the then-owner obtained J-51 tax benefits for qualifying work under New York City’s tax incentive program.
- In 1993, state law added “luxury decontrol,” allowing deregulation of certain rent-stabilized units meeting statutory rent and income thresholds.
- The same 1993 legislation excluded from luxury decontrol housing accommodations that “became or become subject to” rent stabilization “by virtue of” receiving J-51 benefits.
- Despite receiving J-51 benefits, the owners deregulated units through high-rent/high-income procedures.
- For years, the housing agency had interpreted the J-51 exclusion to apply only to buildings that became stabilized because of J-51, not to buildings already stabilized before receiving J-51 benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory J-51 exclusion from luxury decontrol applies only when J-51 is the reason rent stabilization attaches, or also when a building was already rent-stabilized before receiving J-51 benefits.
2. Whether the housing agency’s contrary, long-standing interpretation was entitled to deference.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division and denied the owners’ motion to dismiss, allowing the tenants’ claims to proceed.
- The court held that the J-51 exclusion bars luxury decontrol for apartments in buildings receiving J-51 benefits, even if the buildings were rent-stabilized before the benefits began.
- The court declined to defer to the agency interpretation because the statutory text and scheme were not ambiguous and the agency’s reading effectively added a limitation not found in the statute.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory text controls where clear; courts will not insert limiting words (such as “solely”) that the Legislature did not use.
- The J-51 exclusion from luxury decontrol applies when J-51 benefits are a reason the housing accommodations are subject to rent stabilization, not only when J-51 is the exclusive reason.
- Agency deference is inappropriate where the statute is unambiguous or the agency interpretation conflicts with the statute’s language and design.
- Owners receiving J-51 tax benefits may not deregulate apartments through luxury decontrol for the duration of the J-51 benefit period.

## Conclusion

The court held that J-51 tax benefits and luxury deregulation are incompatible during the benefit period, and it reinstated tenants’ claims challenging deregulation and seeking relief for resulting rent overcharges.


Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., 13 N.Y.3d 270, 918 N.E.2d 900 (N.Y. 2009)