NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2017 · supreme court of the state of new york county of new york lndex no. himmelstein, mcconnell, cribben, donoghue & joseph, llp, plaintiff,

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORK lndex No.

HIMMELSTEIN, McCONNELL, cRIBBEN,DONOGHUE & JOSEPH, LLP,

Plaintiff,SUMMONS

against

MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC.,A MEMBER OF LEXISNEXIS GROUP, INC.

Defendant.

Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial.The basis of venue is the location of the parties and the locationwhere the causes of action arose.

TO THE ABOVE.NAMED DEFENDANTS:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action andto serve a copy of your answer on plaintiffs within twenty (20) days after the serviceof this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty [30] days after theservice is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within theState of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment willbe taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Dated: February 21,2017New York, New York

JAM B. FISHMANKE ETH ROSENFELDFISHMAN ROZEN, LLP305 Broadway, Suite 900New York, NY 10007(212) 897-5840ifish man@fm lawoffices. netAttorneys for Plaintiff

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2017 06:09 PM INDEX NO. 650932/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2017

1 of 26

TO: MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY,C/O LEXISNEXIS GROUP, INC.230 Park AvenueNew York, NYDefendant

tNc.,



2 of 26

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORK lndex No.

HIMMELSTEIN, McCONNELL, GRIBBEN,DONOGHUE & JOSEPH, LLP,

Plaintiff, VERIFIED CLASSACTION COMPLAINT

against

MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC.,A MEMBER OF LEXISNEXIS GROUP, INC.

Defendant.

The plaintiff, HIMMELSTEIN, McGONNELL, GRIBBEN,

DONOGHUE & JOSEPH, LLP, (hereafter, .HMGDJ" or the plaintiff) by its

attorneys, Fishman Rozen LLP, individually, and on behalf of the class defined

herein, as and for their complaint against the defendant, MATTHEW BENDER &

GOMPANY, lNc., a member of LEXISNEXIS GRouP, lNc. ("hereafter, "Bender"

or the defendant) as and for their complaint, allege as follows, upon information

and belief:

INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and a class comprised of (i) all

Persons residing, or doing business, within the State of New York who purchased

the "New York Landlord-Tenant Law" book published by the defendant, also



3 of 26

known as the "Tanbook" (the "Tanbook") from the defendant or any of its

predecessors during the six-year period prior to the commencement of this action.

2, The Tanbook is issued on an annual basis and is described by the

defendant as "designed to provide authoritative information..." and as a

compilation of "all the laws and regulations governing landlord/tenant matters in

New York, providing the text of state statutes, regulations and local laws."

3. The Tanbook is regularly purchased by lawyers, judges and real estate

professionals in New York and has been for many years.

4. Rather than an authoritative source of state statutes, laws and regulations,

the Tanbook, which is represented by the defendant as complete and unedited, is

instead, at least as pertains to those involving rent regulated housing in New York

rife with omissions and inaccuracies, rendering it of no value to the attorneys, lay

people, or judges who use it.

5. The plaintiff and the class it seeks to represent allege that by selling the

Tanbook with numerous omissions and incomplete laws and regulations the

defendant breached its contract with the class members who purchased the book.

6. As a result of such breach of contract the plaintiff and the purported class

are entitled to recover their contract damages consisting of the amount they paid

for the book during the six-year period prior to the commencement of this action.

7. The plaintiff, and the class it seeks to represent, further allege, as detailed

herein, that the defendant has been unjustly enriched in the amount of all Tanbook

sales during the six-year period prior to the commencement of this action.



4 of 26

8. The plaintiff, and the class it seeks to represent, further allege, as detailed

herein, that the defendant engaged in deceptive business practices, in violation of

New York General Busrness Law $ 349, and, as a result, they are entitled to

recover their actual damages consisting of restitution for the amount paid to the

defendant for the purchase of the Tanbook by each class member during the six

year period prior to the commencement of this action, together with an injunction

barring the defendant from engaging in further deceptive practices and an award

of attorney's fees.

9. The plaintiff and the purported class, following certification, are also

entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to CPIR $ 909.

10. By this action, plaintitf seeks to remedy the harm caused by defendant's

wrongful conduct. As set forth below, plaintiff and all those similarly situated

should be awarded compensatory damages, restitution and/or other relief to

redress defendant's unlawful and deceptive conduct constituting breach of

contract and/or unjust enrichment and in violation of IVew York General Buslness

Law $ 349.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This Court has jurisdiction under CPLR $302, because defendant regularly

transacts business within the State of New York.

12. Venue is appropriate in New York County Court pursuant to CPLR S503,

because plaintiff conducts business in this county.



5 of 26

THE PARTIES

13. HMGDJ is a law firm located at 1s Maiden Lane, New york, Ny.

14. All of the partners and associates of HMGDJ are attorneys admitted to

practice before the courts of the State of New york.

15. HMGDJ, which was first established in 1981 , represents individuals,

families, tenant associations, cooperative shareholder groups, condominíum

associations and commercial tenants in disputes over evictions, rent increases,

rental-owner conversions and other issues.

16. Since at least 2010, and each year since, HMGDJ has purchased multiple

copies of the Tanbook from the defendant for use by its attorneys.

17 . The defendant is a domestic corporation with a place of business in New

York at 230 Park Avenue, New york, Ny. The defendant regularly engages in

business in the State of New York.

18. The defendant is an operating division of LexisNexis Group, a subsidiary of

RELX Group.

19. The defendant publishes various law related publications in New york and

elsewhere in the United States. The Tanbook is among the publications that the

defendant publishes in New york.



6 of 26

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

20. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action, pursuant to CPLR Article 9, on

behalf of the Class consisting of (i) all persons residing or doing business within

the State of New York who purchased the Tanbook from the defendant, or any of

its predecessors during the six year period prior to the commencement of this

action (the "class period").

21. The Class satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality adequacy,

predominance, and superiority requirements of CPLR S90f.

22. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable. Although the precise number of Class members is unknown to

plaintiff at this time and can be determined only by appropriate discovery, it is

reasonably estimated that the Class consists of at least thousands of persons who

are geographically dispersed throughout New York State and the United States.

23. Because plaintiff purchased the Tanbook from the defendant in at least

one of the previous six years it is a member of the Class and its claims are typical

of the claims of the members of the Class with the only variation pertaining to the

number of books purchased by class members.

24. The harm suffered by plaintiff and all other Class members was and is

caused by the same conduct by defendant, r.e., defendant's sale of the Tanbook

with numerous omissions and incomplete laws and regulations.



7 of 26

25. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the

Class in that plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to, nor in conflict with, the Class.

Plaintiff has retained competent counsel, experienced in consumer and class

action litigation, to further ensure such protection and who intends to prosecute

this action vigorously.

26. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

efficient adjudication of this controversy. Because the monetary damages suffered

by individual Class members are relatively small, the expense and burden of

individual litigation make it virtually impossible for individual Class members to

seek redress for the wrongful conduct alleged. lf Class treatment of these claims

were not available, defendant would likely continue its wrongful conduct of selling

the Tanbook and also would unfairly receive many hundreds of thousands or

millions of dollars for a product which has little or no value whatsoever to the

persons purchasing it or would otherwise escape liability for its wrongdoing as

alleged in this Complaint.

27. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class

which predominate over any questions that may affect individual Class members.

Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are the following:

a) whether the Tanbook is replete with omissions and incomplete laws

and regulations rendering it an unreliable resource for the attorneys, judges

and others who use it;



8 of 26

b) whether the defendant breached its contract with the class members

by selling them a book that was represented to be a complete compilation of

the laws and regulations set forth in it when in fact it was not;

c) whether the defendant engaged in deceptive business practices by

representing that the Tanbook to be a complete compilation of the laws and

regulations set forth in it when in fact it was not;

d) whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched with the proceeds

of the sale of the Tanbook which has little or no value to its purchasers;

e) whether defendant should be enjoined from continuing to sell or offer

to sell the Tanbook to members of the public without insuring that contains a

complete and accurate compilation of the laws and regulations it purports to

include;

Ð whether the class members purchased the Tanbook from the

defendant.

28. The Class is readily definable, and prosecution of this action as a Class

action will reduce the possibility of repetitious litigation. lnformation concerning the

names and addresses of class members who purchased the Tanbook during the

class period is available from defendant's books and records.

29. Plaintitf knows of no difficulty which will be encountered in the

management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a Class

action.



9 of 26

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

30. The Tanbook is a book that is published by the defendant and marketed to

individuals, law firms, courts and others who are involved in Landlord/Tenant legal

issues in New York State.

31. The Tanbook is part of a package of the defendant's "color Books,,

including the Redbook, the whitebook, the Bluebook, the yellowbook the

Greenbook, the Graybook, and the Goldbook, each of which is aimed at lawyers,

the judiciary, and individuals involved in the subject matter of each volume.

32. lt is estimated that the defendant sold at least l OO,OOO Tanbooks to class

members during the class period.

33. An investigation conducted by the plaintitf's attorneys (the "investigation")

established that the 2016 Tanbook is rife with significant omissions and inaccurate

provisions of state and local statutes and regulations concerning rent regulation in

New York.

34. The same or more omissions also affect editions of the Tanbook from at

least 2010.

35. That investigation consisted of a review of New York State and New york

City rent regulation laws, including the Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations

(9 NYCRR Parts 2500-2511), the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1g74, the

City Rent and Rehabilitation Law (NYC Admin. Code Sections 26-401 to 26-415)

(the "New York City Rent Control Law"), the New York City Rent and Eviction



10 of 26

Regulations (9 NYCRR Parts 2200-2211) (the "New york City Rent Control

Regulations"), the Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR Parts 2520-2531) and the

Rent Stabilization Law (NYC Admin. Code Sections 26-501to 26-507, 26-509-26-

520).

36. The investigation revealed that the following omissions and inaccuracies in

the statutes and regulations reviewed:

a) Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations: 6 omissions, 2 inaccuracies;

b) city Rent and Rehabilitation Law: 7 omissions, 2 inaccuracies;

c) New York city Rent and Eviction Regulations: 8 omissions;

d) Rent Stabilization Code: 9 omissions, 2 inaccuracies;

e) Rent Stabilization Law: 7 omissions, 2 inaccuracies.

The full list of omissions and inaccuracies is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

37. The sections of the laws and regulations omitted from the Tanbook or for

which there are substantial inaccuracies concern significant aspects of New york

Landlord/Tenant law, and include provisions providing protections to tenants under

the various rent regulatory schemes.

Examples of Omissions from the Rent Stabilization Law

38. By way of example, the current ranbook (2016), and, upon information

and belief, all prior editions of the Tanbook published during the class period, omit

the entire sentence providing for the requirements under the NyC Rent



11 of 26

Stabilization Law for disabled Rent Stabilized tenants to qualify for a Disability

Rent lncrease Exemption (.DRlE") as described in S26-509b.(2Xi) That sentence,

missing from the Tanbook, reads:

To qualify as a person with a disability for the purposes of this section,an individual shall submit to such agency as the mayor shall designate proof(as specified by regulation of such agency as the mayor shall desighate)showing that such individual is currently receiving social security disabilityinsurance (SSDI) or supplemental security income (SSl) benefits under thefederal social security act or disability pension or disability compensationbenefits provided by the United States department of veterans affairs, or waspreviously eligible by virtue of receiving disability benefits under thesupplemental security income program or the social security disability programand is currently receiving medicalassistance benefits based on determinationof disability as provided in section three hundred sixty-six of the social serviceslaw.

39. The current edition of the Tanbook (2016), and, upon information and

belief, all prior editions of the Tanbook published during the class period, omit the

entire subsection providing for the mandated formula for calculating rents when a

Rent Stabilized Tenant who is recipient of either a Senior Citizen Rent lncrease

Exemption ("SCRIE") or a DRIE also receives a rent reduction order from the NYS

Department of Housing and Community Renewal. That subsection tg26-

509b.(3X¡XdXi¡i)1, missing from the Tanbook, reads:

When a rent reduction order is issued by the state division of housingand community renewal, the amount of the reduction shall be subtracted fromthe rent payable by the tenant specified in a currently valid rent exemption orderissued pursuant to this subdivision. The landlord may not collect from thetenant a sum of rent exceeding the adjusted amount while the rent reductionorder is in effect.



12 of 26

Examples of Omissions or Substantial Inaccuracies from the RentStabilization Gode


belief, all prior editions of the Tanbook published during the class period, omit two

entire subsections of the Rent Stabilization Code regarding the applicability of

Rent Stabilization for certain othenruise eligible housing accommodations. Rent

Stabilization Code Part 2520.1 1 (r) (5) and Par12520 I 1 (rX6) are not found in the

Tanbook. They read as follows (omissions in bold):

P art 2520.1 1 Applicability

This Code shall apply to all or any class or classes of housingaccommodations made subject to regulation pursuant to the RSL or any otherprovision of law, except the following housing accommodations for so long asthey maintain the status indicated below:

(r) housing accommodations which

(5) became or become vacant on or after June 24, 2011, with alegal regulated rent of $ 2,500 or more per month;

(6) exemption pursuant to this subdivision shall applyregardless of whether the next tenant in occupancy or anysubsequent tenant in occupancy is charged or pays less thanthe applicable amount qualifying for deregulation as providedin this subdivision;



subsection of the Rent Stabilization Code regarding the level of high rent high

income vacancy deregulation in effect since July 1 ,2011. Rent Stabilization Code



13 of 26

Par|2520.11(sX2) is not found in the Tanbook. That section exempts housing

accommodations which:

(2) have a legal regulated rent of $ 2,500 or more per month as ofJuly 1 ,2011 or after, and which are occupied by persons who had a totalannual income in excess of $ 200,000 per annum for each of the twopreceding calendar years, where the first of such two preceding calendaryears is 2010 or later, with total annual income being defined in andsubject to the limitations and process set forth in Parl2531 of this Title;

42. the current edition of the Tanbook (2016), and, upon information and


entire subsection of the Rent Stabilization Code regarding applications for

adjustment of initial legal regulated rent for housing accommodations under RSC

52522.3(f). This subsection, among its other requirements, generally limits the use

of allegations of unique or peculiar circumstances by landlords to seek initial rent

levels beyond levels prevailing in the same area for substantlally similar housing

tS2522.3(fX2)1, and eliminates consideration of previous rent regulation under the

New York Private Housing Finance Law ("PHFL") or other State or Federal laws,

in and of itself, as a unique or peculiar circumstance. [S 2522.3(Ð(4)1. The full text

of subsection $2522.3(f), omitted entirely in the Tanbook, reads as follows:

(1) Except as provided in section 2521.1 (a)(2) of this code, the landlordor tenant of a housing accommodation made subject to this code by the ETPAmay, within 60 days of the date the housing accommodation became subjectto the ETPA or the commencement of the first tenancy thereafter, file anapplication on forms prescribed by the DHCR to adjust the initial legalregulated rent on the grounds that the presence of unique or peculiarcircumstances materially affecting the legal regulated rent has resulted in a



14 of 26

rent wh¡ch is substantially different from the rents generally prevailing in thesame area for substantially similar housing accommodations.

(2) The DHCR may grant an appropriate adjustment of the initial legalregulated rent upon finding that such grounds do exist, provided that theadjustment shall not result in a legal regulated rent substantially different fromthe legal regulated rents generally prevailing in the same area for substantiallysimilar housing accommodations.

(3) Any such adjustment shall consider, in addition to the factorscontained in section 2522.3(f)(2), the equities involved and the generallimitations required by section 2522.7 of this title.

(4) Previous regulation of the rent for the housing accommodationunder the PHFL or any other State or Federal law shall not, in and of itself,constitute a unique and peculiar circumstance within the meaning of thissubdivision. Any change in economic circumstances arising as a consequenceof the termination of such prior regulation of rent may only be addressed in aproceeding for adjustment of the legal regulated rent under paragraphs (b) and(c) of section 2522.4 of this code.


belief, all prior editions of the Tanbook published during the class period,

completely omit RSC 52522.8(aX3). That subsect¡on limits a landlord from taking

a vacancy rent increase to no more than one time in any one calendar year. The

full text of subsection $2522.8(a)(3), omitted entirely in the Tanbook, reads as

follows:

(3) Effective June 24,2011, the increase authorized in this paragraphmay not be implemented more than one time in any calendar year,notwithstanding the number of vacancy leases entered into in such year.


belief, all prior editions of the Tanbook from approximately 2013 to the present, fail

to provide an accurate version of the penalties a landlord may face if it is found to



15 of 26

have violated an order of the DHCR. Since approximately October 2012, RSC

$2526.2(c)(1) has allowed DHCR to impose a penalty of $1,000 for the first such

offense and $2,000 for each subsequent offense. Since approximately October

2012, if an owner has been found by DHGR to have harassed a tenant RSC

$2526.2(c)(2) provides that DHCR may impose a penalty of $2,000 for the first

such offense and $10,000 for each subsequent offense.

45. The Tanbook's version of these sections has not been accurate for over

four years and instead states that the penalties for such violations are significantly

lower than have been in effect for some time. The full text of these two sections

$2526.2(c)(r) and $2526.2(c)(2) read as follows:

(c) lf the owner is found by the DHCR:

(1) to have violated an order of the DHCR, the DHCR may impose, byadministrative order after holding a hearing, a penalty in the amount of $ 1 ,000for the first such offense and $ 2,000 for each subsequent offense; or

(2) to have harassed a tenant to obtain a vacancy of a housingaccommodation, the DHCR may impose, by administrative order after holdinga hearing, a penalty in the amount of $ 2,000 for the first such offense and upto $ 1 0,000 for each subsequent offense or for a violation consisting of conductdirected at the tenants of more than one housing accommodation.

Such order shall be deemed a final determination for the purposes ofjudicial review pursuant to Part 2530 of this Title. Such penalty may, upon theexpiration of the period for seeking review pursuant to article 78 of the CivilPractice Law and Rules, be docketed and enforced in the manner of ajudgment of the Supreme Court; or.



16 of 26

Examples of Omissions from the Gity Rent and Rehabilitation Law (NYGRent Gontrol Law)



entire sentence providing for the requirements under the City Rent and

Rehabilitation Law (also known as the NYC Rent Control Law), N.Y.C.

Administrative Code Sections 26-401 -26-415, for disabled Rent Control tenants

to qualify for a DRIE as described in NYC Administrative Code $26-405m (2Xi).

That sentence reads:

To qualify as a person with a disability for the purposes of this section,an individual shall submit to such agency as the mayor shall designate proof(as specified by regulation of such agency as the mayor shall designate)showing that such individual is currently receiving social security disabilityinsurance (SSDI) or supplemental security income (SSl) benefits under thefederal social security act or disability pension or disability compensationbenefits provided by the United States department of veterans affairs, or waspreviously eligible by virtue of receiving disability benefits under thesupplementalsecurity income program orthe social security disability programand is currently receiving medicalassistance benefits based on determinationof disability as provided in section three hundred sixty-six of the socialserviceslaw. Nothing herein contained shall render ineligible for benefits personsreceiving supplemental security income or additional state payments, or both,under a program administered by the United States department of health andhuman services or by such department and the New York State department ofsocial services.

47 . The current edition of the Tanbook (2016), and, upon information and


entire subsection in the City Rent and Rehabilitation Law providing the mandated

formula for calculating rents when a Rent Controlled Tenant who is recipient of



17 of 26

either a SCRIE or a DRIE also receives a rent reduction order. That subsection

[$26405m.(3XaXi¡i)] reads as follows:

(c) When a rent reduction order is issued by the city rent agency, theamount of the reduction shall be subtracted from the rent payable by the tenantspecified in a currently valid rent exemption order issued pursuant to thissubdivision. The landlord may not collect from the tenant a sum of rentexceeding the adjusted amouni while the rent reduction order is in effect

Examples of omissions from the New York city Rent and EvictionRegulations (NYC Rent Gontrol Regulations) 9 NYCRR Parts 2200-2211



entire subsections of the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations regarding

the applicability of Rent control for certain othenruise eligible housing

accommodations. NYC Rent and Eviction Regulations g 2200.2(f)(19)(v) and

S2200.2(fX1gXv) are not found in the Tanbook. They read as follows (omissions in

bold):

S 2200.2 Statutory definition

(f) Housing accommodations not subject to control. Notwithstanding theforegoing definition of housing accommodations, these regulationslhallnot apply to the following:

(v) became or become vacant on or after June 24,2011, with amaximum rent of $2,500 or more per month;

(vi) exemption pursuant to this paragraph shall apply regardress ofwhether the next tenant in occupancy or any subsequent tenant inoccupancy is charged or pays less than the applicable amountqualifying for deregulation as provided in this paragraph;



18 of 26



subsection of the NYC Rent and Eviction Regulations regarding the level of high

rent high income vacancy deregulation in effect since July 1 ,2011. NyC Rent and

Eviction Regulations Part 2200.2(f)(20(ii) is not found in the Tanbook. lt exempts

housing accommodations which:

(ii) have a maximum rent of $ 2,500 or more per month as of July 1,2011 and which are occupied by persons who had a total annual incomê ¡nexcess of $ 200,000 per annum for each of the two preceding calendar years,where the first of such two preceding calendar years is 2010 òr later, witÍr totalannual income being defined in and subject to the limitations and process setforth in Paft2211 of this Tiile;

Examples of Omissions or Substantial lnaccuracies from the EmergencyTenant Protection Regulations



entire subsections of the Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations regarding the

applicability of Rent Stabilization for certain otherwise eligible housing

accommodations. Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations Sections 2500.g(m)3

and 2500.g(mXa). They read as foltows (omissions in bold):

52500.9 Housing accommodations subject to regulation

This chapter shall apply to all or any class or crasses of housingaccommodations in a city, town or village for which a declaration ofemergency has been made except the following:



19 of 26

(m) housing accommodations which:

(3) became or become vacant on or after June 24,2011, with alegal regulated rent of $ 2,500 or more per month;

(4) exemption pursuant to this subdivision shall applyregardless of whether the next tenant in occupancy or anysubsequent tenant in occupancy is charged or pays less thanthe applicable amount qualifying for deregulation as providedin this subdivision;



entire subsection of the Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations regarding the

limitation of a vacancy rent increase to one time in any calendar year. [Emergency

Tenant Protection Regulations $2502.7(aX3)1. This subsection prohibits a landlord

from taking a vacancy rent increase more than one time in any one calendar year.

The full text of subsection $2502.7(aX3), omitted in the Tanbook, reads as follows:

(3) Effective June 24,2011, the increase authorized in this paragraphmay not be implemented more than one time in any calendar year,notwithstanding the number of vacancy leases entered into in such year.

52. The current edition of the Tanbook (2016), and, upon information and belief, all

prior editions of the Tanbook from approximately 2013 to the present, fail to provide an

accurate version of the penalties a landlord may face if found to have violated an order of

the DHCR. Since approximately October 2012 the Emergency Tenant Protection

Regulations under $2506.2(c)(1) has allowed DHCR to impose a penalty of g1 ,000 for

the first such offense and $2,000 for each subsequent offense. Since approximately

October 2012, if a landlord has been found by DHCR to have harassed a tenant, the



20 of 26

Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations under S2506.2(c)(2) provide that DHCR may

impose a penalty of $2,000 for the first such offense and $1O,O0O for each subsequent

offense. The Tanbook's version of these penalties has not been accurate for at least four

years and provides for significantly less fines then have been in effect for some time. The

full text of these two sections 92506.2(cX1) and 9250G .2(c)(2) read as foilows:

(c) lf a landlord is found by the division

(1) to have violated an order of the division, the division may impose byadministrative order after hearing, a civil penalty in the amount of g 1,000for the first such offense and $ 2,000 for each subsequent offense; or

(2) to have harassed a tenant to obtain vacancy of a housingaccommodation, the division may impose by administrative order afterhearing, a civil penalty in the amount of $ 2,000 for the first such offenseänd up to $ 10,000 for each subsequent offense or for a violation consistingof conduct directed at the tenant of more than one housing accommodation.

FIRST GAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT

53. Plaintitf repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if fully stated

herein

54. The defendant describes, and has described, the Tanbook as "a

compilation of the statutory and regulatory provisions governing landlord-tenant

matters in New York State." (2016 Tanbook, Overview)

55. Part lll of the Tanbook is entitled "Rent Regulation" and is described as

being "comprised of the laws and regulations covering rent stabilization and rent

control in New York City and in applicable areas elsewhere in the state."



21 of 26

56. ln reality, the Tanbook is not an authoritative source of rent regulation laws

and regulations in New York. Nor is it a complete compilation of such laws and

regulations. lnstead, the Tanbook is an unreliable and incomplete resource that is

missing a significant number of statutory and regulatory rent regulation provisions.

57. Upon information and belief, the missing or inaccurate provisions of the

2016 Tanbook were also missing or inaccurate in each of the annually published

editions of the Tanbook during the entire class period.

58. By offering a complete and authoritative compilation of such laws and

regulations and then failing to provide such a product to the plaintiff and members

of the class, the defendant breached its contract with such persons and entities.

59. Upon information and belief, the defendant currently sells the Tanbook for

prices ranging from $108.00 to $120.00.

60. Upon information and belief, the defendant previously sold the Tanbook

during the class period for prices ranging from $60-$120.00.

61. The plaintiff and the class suffered contract damages in the amount they

paid for the Tanbook during the class period.

62. The plaintiff and the class are entitled to a money judgment against the

defendant in an amount equal to the total Tanbook sales to class members during

the class period.



22 of 26

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICESIN VIOLATION OF GENERAL BUSINESS LAW ART. 22.A

63. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if fully stated

herein.

64. The defendant represents the Tanbook as "authoritative."

65. The defendant advises purchasers of the Tanbook the method by which

they should cite it to courts. The 2016 book states, "Cite this publication as: New

York Landlord-Tenant Law, Tanbook, Ch. Title., S no. (2015 ed.

LexisNexis/Matthew Bender, 2015)." Upon information and belief, prior editions

have a similar advisory.

66. The defendant's conduct in representing that the Tanbook is a complete

and authoritative source of rent regulation laws and regulations constitutes a

materially deceptive act and practice in the conduct of business, trade, or

commerce or in the furnishing of services in this State which affect the public

interest under GBL S 349.

67. The plaintiff and the Class have been injured by defendant's conduct in the

amount they paid for the Tanbook.

68. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff and the class for the actual damage

they sustained as allowable under GBt S 349in an amount to be determined at

trial.



23 of 26

69. Additionally, the defendant should be enjoined from continuing to engage

in its wrongful violations of GBL $ 349 with respect to the sale of the Tanbook

containing significant omissions and/or inaccuracies.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: UNJUST ENRTCHMENT

70. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if fully stated

herein.

71. Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of and to the

detriment of plaintiff and the Class by wrongfully charging and receiving payment

for the Tanbook under the facts and circumstances alleged. Defendant's retention

of the monies wrongfully collected from plaintiff and the Class violates

fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

72. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover from defendant all amounts

as unjust enrichment that have been wrongfully and improperly collected and

retained by defendant, and defendant should be required to disgorge the monies

which it has unjustly obtained.

wHEREFORE, plaintitf, on behalf of itself and the class, demands

judgment against defendant as follows:

a) Certifying this case as a class action pursuant to CPLR Article 9,

with plaintiff certified as representatives of the Class.



24 of 26

b) Awarding compensatory and/or actual damages, and/or

disgorgement and/or restitution in favor of plaintiff and the class, in an

amount to be determined at trial;

c) Enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in the deceptive

business practices set forth herein;

d) Awarding the costs and disbursements incurred in connection with

this action, including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses;

e) Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest; and

Ð Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and

proper

Dated: New York, NYFebruary LPzott You

ISHMANKENN ROSENFELD

ROZEN, LLPFISH305 Broadway Suite 900New York, NY 10007212-897-5840ifish man @fm lawoffices. netkrosenfel d @fm I awoff i ces. netAttorney for the Plaintiff



25 of 26

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

SAMUEL J. HIMMELSTEIN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am a member of HIMMELSTEIN, McGONNELL, GRIBBEN,

DONOGHUE & JosEPH, LLP the plaintiff in this action. I have read the

complaint in this action and verify that the allegations set forth therein are true

and accurate to the best of my knowledge except for those matters which are

alleged upon information and belief and as to those matters I believe them to be

true.

Sworn to me tnis'faay ofHI M EIN

F ry, 2017

))

)

SS

PUBLICCLAUDIA L. MARRON

Notary Public, State of New YorkNo.01M44944738

Qualified in New York CCommission Expires Nov.

ountv28,201È



26 of 26

Documents

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2017 · supreme court of the state of new york county of new york lndex no. himmelstein, mcconnell, cribben, donoghue & joseph, llp, plaintiff,