§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

6 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. In re Gilman v. N.Y.S. Div. of Housing

    99 N.Y.2d 144 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 226 times
    In Gilman, we held that DHCR acted irrationally when it applied an amendment relaxing evidentiary requirements for admission of owner records to permit an owner to reopen the record, nearly a decade after the tenant commenced the proceeding and during the administrative appeal, expressing concern that "the rules were changed in midstream" (99 N.Y.2d at 147, 149–152, 753 N.Y.S.2d 1, 782 N.E.2d 1137).

  3. 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

  4. In Matter of Cintron

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7376 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 68 times
    In Cintron, the Court of Appeals held that the “four-year limitations/look-back period” applicable to rent overcharge claims does not preclude the agency from considering previously issued rent reduction orders which remain in effect during that period (id. at 355–56, 912 N.Y.S.2d 498, 938 N.E.2d 931).

  5. Jemrock Realty Co. v. Krugman

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 211 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 31 times

    No. 59 SSM 59. Decided January 14, 2010. APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered May 19, 2009. The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (op 18 Misc 3d 15), which had (1) reversed an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered after a non-jury trial, to the extent it determined

  6. Boyd v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

    110 A.D.3d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 22 times

    2013-10-29 In re Kelley S. BOYD, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, et al., Respondents–Respondents, C–Uptown Realty, et al., Respondents. Kelley S. Boyd, appellant pro se. Gary R. Connor, New York (Jack Kuttner of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent. MAZZARELLI Kelley S. Boyd, appellant pro se.Gary R. Connor, New York (Jack Kuttner of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal