The New York property landscape has long been a battleground where public policy and private property rights intersect. At the heart of this ongoing conflict stands a pivotal legal case that could fundamentally alter how property owners navigate compliance with regulatory filings. Recently, Nativ Winiarsky, a seasoned partner at the prominent law firm Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens, LLP (KMWB), appeared before the New York Court of Appeals, state’s highest judicial authority, to argue a case that holds profound implications for landlords and property managers across New York.
This case does more than address a single dispute; it seeks to affirm a basic right for property owners: the ability to correct past filing mistakes without the looming threat of fraud allegations. Nativ Winiarsky’s advocacy is more than legal strategy. It is a fight to protect the integrity and fairness of the system that governs tens of thousands of housing units in one of the most heavily regulated markets in the nation.
Understanding the Core Legal Question: Can Owners Amend DHCR Registrations Without Legal Repercussions?
The dispute centers around filings with New York State’s Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), which requires property owners to register their rent-stabilized apartments annually. In the normal course of business, owners may discover that past filings contain errors or omissions, such as incorrect rent amounts, missing apartment units, or inaccurate tenant information that needs to be updated.
The issue is whether owners can amend these historical registrations in good faith to correct such errors, or whether doing so could expose them to fraud allegations, lawsuits, and financial penalties. For Nativ Winiarsky, lawyer, and the team at KMWB, the answer is clear: property owners must be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to amend past filings without automatically being accused of fraudulent behavior. Arguing otherwise, they contend, sets a dangerous precedent that penalizes transparency and discourages proactive compliance.
Why This Case Matters: The Broader Implications for Property Owners
A ruling from the Court of Appeals on this matter will reverberate far beyond a single case. In fact, it could either reinforce or undermine fundamental principles of due process, particularly for owners who operate in good faith and wish to remain compliant with ever-evolving housing regulations.
If the court rules against the ability to amend filings, property owners could face a cascade of negative consequences, including:
- Elevated Risk of Fraud Claims: Even honest errors in older filings could be weaponized in court, creating exposure for fraud claims regardless of an owner’s intent.
- Increased Litigation: With greater legal risk, property owners may find themselves entangled in costly legal battles over simple administrative errors.
- Regulatory Paralysis: Property owners may become hesitant to proactively fix past mistakes, fearing that transparency will only lead to punishment.
- Heightened Compliance Complexity: New York’s housing regulations are already notoriously complex. Without a mechanism to fix genuine filing mistakes, compliance becomes even more daunting, especially for small landlords who lack legal resources.
On the other hand, a favorable ruling would affirm a property owner’s right to correct past inaccuracies without being presumed guilty of fraud. This would help create a more functional regulatory environment and provide much-needed clarity for thousands of landlords across the state.
KMWB’s Ongoing Role in Protecting Property Owner Rights
Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens has long stood at the intersection of real estate law, regulatory policy, and property rights. The firm is widely respected for its deep knowledge of New York’s complex housing laws and its commitment to defending clients against burdensome or unclear regulations.
In this case, Nativ Winiarsky’s argument before the Court of Appeals epitomizes KMWB’s broader mission: ensuring that the legal system remains a tool for justice—not a trap for the unwary. By challenging the idea that amending past registrations should automatically imply malfeasance, Nativ Winiarsky is reinforcing the notion that fairness must remain central to regulatory enforcement.
Next Steps: What Property Owners Should Do Now
While the legal community awaits the court’s decision, KMWB advises property owners to take proactive steps to protect themselves and prepare for potential changes in enforcement or interpretation of the law.
Here’s what owners can do now:
- Review Past DHCR Filings: Conduct an audit of historical rent registrations to identify discrepancies, omissions, or clerical errors.
- Seek Legal Guidance: Consult with legal professionals who are well-versed in DHCR requirements and current litigation. Proper counsel can help owners make informed decisions about whether and how to amend past filings.
- Stay Informed: Follow the progress of this case closely. KMWB has committed to keeping clients and property owners updated as soon as a decision is handed down.
- Implement Best Practices: Consider putting systems in place to track filing accuracy moving forward. This may include staff training, digital filing systems, or periodic audits.
A Turning Point in New York Property Law
The case argued by Nativ Winiarsky before the New York Court of Appeals may prove to be a watershed moment for property owners across the state. At its heart, the matter reflects a deeper debate about fairness, accountability, and how best to administer a complex web of housing regulations in a way that serves both tenants and landlords alike.
If the court rules in favor of the ability to amend DHCR filings without fear of reprisal, it will send a strong message that transparency and good-faith efforts to comply with the law should be rewarded, not punished. On the other hand, a ruling that curtails those rights could chill honest attempts at compliance and embolden more aggressive enforcement tactics.
As this important case nears resolution, one thing remains clear: Nativ Winiarsky of Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens and the team at KMWB are defending the principle that property owners deserve a fair shot at correcting honest mistakes without being dragged into costly legal disputes. For property owners navigating New York’s regulatory minefield, the outcome of this case may very well shape the future of compliance for years to come.
