22 Cited authorities

Pell v. Board of Education
34 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 5,553 times 1 Legal Analyses
Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal
Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7480 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 371 times
In Roberts, this Court rejected DHCR's long-standing statutory interpretation and concluded that luxury deregulation was unavailable in any building during receipt of J–51 benefits (13 N.Y.3d at 285–287, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388, 918 N.E.2d 900).
Grimm v. State
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7379 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 244 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
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
East West Renovating Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
16 A.D.3d 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) Cited 85 times
In East Renovating, the apartment became subject to rent stabilization when the owner began to receive J–51 tax benefits.
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.
Bambeck v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
129 A.D.2d 51 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987) Cited 99 times
In Bambeck this court upheld the classification of buildings as a "horizontal multiple dwelling" complex despite their failure to conform to the statutory definition of a "garden-type maisonette dwelling" complex.
Zafra v. Pilkes
245 A.D.2d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) Cited 45 times
December 30, 1997 Appeal from Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department. Appellate Term upheld the determination of the Civil Court that neither the four-year Statute of Limitations for rent overcharge complaints (Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of N.Y.] § 26-516 [a] [2]; Rent Stabilization Code [ 9 NYCRR] § 2526.1 [a] [2]) nor the record-keeping provisions relieving a landlord from having to produce records dating back more than four years prior to the most
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
Gomez v. Community Renewal
79 A.D.3d 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) Cited 18 times
No. 2009-06509. December 14, 2010. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated June 27, 2008, which denied a request for administrative review and confirmed a determination of the Rent Administrator dated April 2, 2008, finding that there was no overcharge of rent, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated March 20, 2009

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

22 Cited authorities

Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal

In Roberts, this Court rejected DHCR's long-standing statutory interpretation and concluded that luxury deregulation was unavailable in any building during receipt of J–51 benefits (13 N.Y.3d at 285–287, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388, 918 N.E.2d 900).

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

In East Renovating, the apartment became subject to rent stabilization when the owner began to receive J–51 tax benefits.

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.

In Bambeck this court upheld the classification of buildings as a "horizontal multiple dwelling" complex despite their failure to conform to the statutory definition of a "garden-type maisonette dwelling" complex.