Dear Roosevelt Landings Neighbors, 

The following is a summary from Bill Salo Esq. who represented the position of all the buildings who are affected by L&M's ghastly submetering plan, on October 6th, including Roosevelt Landings.  

Dear Neighbors,

On Monday, October 6, 2025, we had oral argument before the Hon. Nicholas Moyne in our lawsuit against the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Landlord. The Court previously scheduled this hearing to address three issues — venue, ripeness, and service of process — but the discussion focused mainly on venue and, unexpectedly, one of the core merits of the case.

Ultra Vires/ lack of Jurisdiction:  The Judge questioned the PSC’s attorney whether the PSC had the legal authority to revive its 2011 submetering order after it expired under 16 NYCRR Part 96. The PSC attorney didn’t have a clear answer at first.  She later claimed the 2011 order wasn’t affected by the PSC’s 2012 rule change — an argument we strongly dispute, and the facts and the law are on our side.

On venue, remember, the Landlord and PSC are trying to move our case to Albany County, and the Judge, in my opinion, leaned toward the Landlord’s argument that CPLR 506(b)(2) requires venue in Albany County.

I argued that other venue statutes (CPLR 502, 503, 507, 510(3)) apply here too, especially because this case involves real property in Harlem.
The Judge asked tough questions, including about the Rampe v. Giuliani case, which involved CPLR 507.

If we lose the venue issue, it only means we have to go to Albany, it is not the end of the case.

Many of you told me you had trouble joining the hearing.  Just to clarify:

I do not control the Teams meeting with the Judge. The NY State Court system sets it up and invites us.

Apparently, the Court’s system maxed out at around 100 attendees, so they started a livestream, which looks like it could accommodate only around 100–120 viewers.

Some people experienced choppy video or bad audio — this is likely due to slow internet connection, and/or a lack of bandwidth on your devices.

For future hearings, I’ll ask the Court to expand livestream capacity and request a Spanish interpretation channel so all tenants can follow along.  There is no guarantee that my request will be granted, but I will try.

We’re now waiting for the Judge to decide whether the case stays in Manhattan or gets transferred to Albany.  Then we will get to the fight on the merits of whether or not the submetering order from the PSC was proper.  We argue that the PSC order is improper for two main reasons: (1) because it did not set a maximum rate cap of how much the Landlord can charge, and (2) because it did not back-out the amount of money we pay now for electricity as part of our rent.  Also the DHCR allowances that some of you received are supposed to be deducted from your electric bill, after the proper back-out has been applied, and should therefore be an additional benefit, not the only benefit.  There are other issues as well, but these are the main ones.

A decision could come within 1 to 3 weeks, but it may be sooner. I’ll update everyone by email and door drop as soon as I hear.

The PSC argues the 2011 Order is exempt from the five-year sunset provision of 16 NYCRR Section 96.3(e), because it predates the 2012 regulation, but that’s irrelevant — the 2024 petition and 2025 PSC Order are governed by Part 96.

The core legal fight is whether the PSC can legally “re-commence” a 2011 approval in 2025.  We say no, and the Judge clearly recognized the significance of that question.

Venue is a close call. PSC relies on CPLR 506(b)(2); we rely on the interplay between multiple CPLR venue provisions, especially 507 (real property). This could go either way.

Thank you to everyone who tried to tune in. This was a critical hearing, and your support matters. We’re in a strong position on the merits, even if the venue issue is an uphill fight. I’ll keep everyone informed every step of the way.  Don’t worry, we will keep fighting.

Bill Salo Esq.