Until that ruling comes, those who might have been eligible to join the class, which would include all current and some former rent-regulated residents of Pinnacle buildings, aren't receiving official notification of their right to add their name to the suit. But that hasn't stopped the plaintiffs and their supporters like Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer from informally starting to recruit people to join the case. On Saturday, plaintiff Kim Powell and a representative from Stringer's office briefed a tenant group about it.
Pinnacle lawyer Ken Fisher predicted in an interview with City Limits that the plaintiffs will get few takers. He said that a poll of Pinnacle's residents found that 70 percent of tenants were satisfied with their landlord. "Ultimately, we don’t think many people are going to come forward."
Powell disagrees. She says her law firm tells her that "their phone is non-stop ringing. They are backlogged for months."
The back and forth reflects Powell and Pinnacle's extremely acrimonious relationship. In one incident, Powell's mother Margaret Powell, who shares Powell's apartment, was arrested in 2006 for writing graffiti on an elevator. Powell says the graffiti was to protest poor service by Pinnacle. The prosecutor dropped the charges against Margaret Powell, and Pinnacle dropped a civil complaint when she agreed to refrain from creating “nuisances” and pay back rent.
The lawsuit started in 2007, when a group of 10 Pinnacle tenants sued the landlord, owner of some 20,000 rent regulated apartments across the city, alleging that the company had raised rents improperly and filed eviction notices frivolously as part of a scheme to drive rent-regulated tenants out of their apartments so the landlord could raise rents or sell the units as condos or co-ops.
The suit claimed that Pinnacle had violated not just state law but also the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act, or RICO. The tenants sought an injunction compelling Pinnacle to stop the alleged practices and asked the court to force Pinnacle to pay damages to tenants who'd been wronged. It also asked for certification of Pinnacle tenants as a class.
In April, District Judge Colleen McMahon granted that certification, but she has yet to issue any findings on the merits of the case yet. Even if the Second Circuit upholds McMahon's decision, it will be many months before any ruling on the truth of the residents' claims. Five of the original plaintiffs have already settled and left the case.
Supporters of the remaining plaintiffs—residents of three Pinnacle-owned buildings in Harlem—have cast the case as a potential landmark victory for renter's rights, and a potential model for actions against other landlords.
But if the Second Circuit accepts Pinnacle's bid for an appeal hearing, the ultimate ruling might also set a precedent—not for tenants, but for other citizens who try to sue under RICO.
RICO applies when some person or group commits at least two different crimes in furtherance of the same criminal enterprise. It is a tool for prosecutors but also for private citizens. If a person can prove they've been harmed by a RICO enterprise they can collect three times as much as the illegal acts cost them.
