Case Type

Broker's Fee Overcharge

Housing Type

Rent Stabilized

Court

Supreme Court of the State of New York

County

New York County (Manhattan)

L&T / Index / Case / Docket / Clerk's Number

450245/2019

Slip Opinion Number

2025 NY Slip Op 50546(U)

Petitioner

New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal; The People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York

Respondent

Zara Realty Holding Corp.; Zara Control LLC; Subraj, Karran a/k/a Kenneth; Subraj, Rajesh Anthony a/k/a Tony; Sobhraj, Jairaj a/k/a Jay; Sobhraj, Amir; Subraj, Jasmine; Subraj, Devanand; Jasmine Homes, LLC; Jamaica Management LLC; 149 ST LLC; 150 PARK LLC; 162-20 LLC; 164-03 LLC; 166 ST LLC; 195 ST LLC; 195-24 LLC; 51-25 Van Kleeck LLC; 57 Elmhurst, LLC; 8787 Hillside Park LLC; 88-05 Merrick Blvd LLC; 88-15 144 ST LLC; 88-22 Parsons Blvd LLC; 89-21 153 LLC; 91-60 LLC; Belair Park 5 LLC; Belair Park 8825 LLC; Hillside Park 168 LLC; Hillside Place LLC; Hudson House LLC; Jamaica Estates LLC; Jamaica Seven LLC; King's Park 148 LLC; King's Park 8809 LLC; Ninety One Sixty One LLC; One Ninety Sixth ST LLC; Park Haven, LLC; Parsons 88 Realty LLC; Parsons Manor LLC; Woodhull Park 191 LLC; Woodside Properties 45 ST LLC; Singh, Gagandeep; Subraj, Vibha; Michael J Homes, LLC; David K Homes LLC; Bacchus, James; Rawana, David; Lions Guard Brokerage LLC

Judge

Lebovits, Gerald

Decision/Order Date

2025-04-07

Posture

Post-answer Motion by DHCR

Disposition

Motion Granted for DHCR

Winner

DHCR Substantially Won

Synopsis

DHCR and the AG sought a preliminary injunction barring affiliated brokers from collecting fees above the legal rent in rent-stabilized units, arguing that the brokers were functionally extensions of the landlord used to circumvent rent laws. The case was post-answer and followed a prior injunction against earlier entities. DHCR presented internal emails, financial records, and operational documents showing that the brokerages "though nominally independent" were controlled by the landlord and used to disguise unlawful charges. Defendants argued that these brokers operated independently, but failed to refute the extensive documentation tying them to the landlord. The court found a likelihood of success on the merits and that the equities favored the landlord, rejecting defendant's argument that enforcement would harm broker livelihoods. The court granted the injunction, limiting rent-stabilized tenants' exposure to illegal fees. Practice Note: Attempts to rebrand brokerages to evade rent laws may expose landlords to injunctive relief when the factual record shows continued control and financial entanglement.

Download

Takedown Policy

Share

COinS