§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Kelley S. Boyd, Respondent,v.New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, et al., Appellants.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. Grimm v. State

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7379 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 245 times
    Vacating DHCR's denial of overcharge petition and remanding to consider fraud allegations and the reliability of the base date rent where the landlord had significantly increased the rent, offered leases without a rent stabilization rider, required tenants to make improvements at their own expense or pay increased rent, and failed to register the apartment for several years until after service of the complaint

  2. Thornton v. Baron

    5 N.Y.3d 175 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 202 times
    Finding that tenants alleging rent overcharge may evaluate documents exceeding four-year statute of limitations implemented by RSC § 26-516 to prevent landlord's fraud

  3. Roberts v. Tishman Speyer

    62 A.D.3d 71 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 71 times
    Noting that the statutory scheme draws no distinction “based on whether a J–51 property was already subject to regulation prior to the receipt of such benefits”

  4. 72A Realty Assocs. v. Lucas

    101 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 57 times
    In Lucas, the Appellate Division held that the four-year lookback rule should not be applied, even though the court did not find a colorable claim of fraud, in part because the rent charged four years prior to the complaint was a free market rent following improper deregulation.

  5. Levinson v. 390 West End Associates, L.L.C

    22 A.D.3d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 56 times
    In Levinson, supra, the Court held that where an apartment had been improperly removed from rent regulation, it is appropriate for the court to grant retroactive and prospective use and occupancy "determined by use of the Thornton formula, i.e., the lowest rent charged for a rent-stabilized apartment with same number of rooms in the same building on the relevant base date.

  6. 72A Realty Assoc. v. Lucas

    32 Misc. 3d 47 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)   Cited 25 times

    No. 570514/10. Decided June 1, 2011. CROSS APPEALS from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter M. Wendt, J.), dated May 25, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from, (1) granted respondent Sandra Lucas's motion to dismiss the holdover petition and denied petitioner's cross motion for summary judgment on the petition, (2) granted respondent's application for attorney's fees to the extent such fees were authorized by the governing lease agreement, (3) directed

  7. Bogatin v. Windermere Owners LLC

    98 A.D.3d 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 5 times
    In Bogatin, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the motion court's denial of a pre-answer motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds.

  8. Ruradan Corp. v. Natiello

    21 Misc. 3d 1129 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2008)   Cited 7 times

    July 22, 2008. Kaplan, J. Landlord and Tenant — Rent Regulation — Discovery.

  9. Pehrson v. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal of the State of New York

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 52487 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    1O3323/2010 11-15-2011 In the Matter of the Application of Lennart Pehrson and DEIRDRE DOWNES, Petitioners, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules v. Division of Housing and Community Renewal of the State of New York - and - 215 W. 88TH STREET HOLDINGS, LLC, Respondents For Petitioners Timothy Collins Esq. Collins Dobkin & Miller LLP For Respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal of the State of New York Mary Elizabeth Lacerenza Esq. For Respondent 215

  10. Casimir v. Cons. Home Mort. Inc.

    65 A.D.3d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    September 24, 2009. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered September 2, 2008, which denied defendant Cirillo's motion to vacate a prior default judgment (and orders subsumed therein) entered against him, and either to grant summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him or to restore the action to the trial calendar and disqualify plaintiffs counsel as a necessary witness, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Before: Tom, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire, DeGrasse and Freedman