6 Cited authorities

Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7480 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 373 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 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
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
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”
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.
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

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

6 Cited authorities

Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties

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

Thornton v. Baron

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

Roberts v. Tishman Speyer

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”

72A Realty Assocs. v. Lucas

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.

72A Realty Assoc. v. Lucas