16 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.
Windsor Place Corp. v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
161 A.D.2d 279 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990) Cited 79 times
May 8, 1990 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin R. Weissberg, J.). By order dated April 21, 1986, respondent upheld a tenant objection of an overcharge for garage rent, and determined that the garage space was subject to rent stabilization. An amendment to the order was issued on November 5, 1986, and both the order and the amendment were mailed to petitioner at 640 Fifth Avenue, 3rd floor, New York, New York 10017. On January 30, 1987, petitioner filed a petition for administrative
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
Matter of Dowling v. Holland
245 A.D.2d 167 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) Cited 21 times
245 A.D.2d 167 666 N.Y.S.2d 585 In re Application of William Q. DOWLING, et al., Petitioners-Respondents, For a Determination, etc., v. Joseph H. HOLLAND, etc., et al., Respondents-Appellants. 1997-10,932 Supreme Court of New York, First Department December 18, 1997. Rizpah A. Morrow, for Petitioners-Respondents. Roderick J. Walters, Jeffrey R. Metz, for Respondents-Appellants. Before WALLACH, J.P., and NARDELLI, TOM, MAZZARELLI and COLABELLA, JJ. MEMORANDUM DECISION. Order and judgment (one paper)
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.
Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Higgins
179 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992) Cited 20 times
January 14, 1992 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.). This article 78 proceeding challenging respondent's finding of a willful rent overcharge was dismissed on the ground that petitioner did not file a petition for administrative review within 35 days after issuance of respondent's order ( 9 NYCRR 2529.2), and therefore failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The IAS court rejected petitioner's denial of receipt of respondent's order, finding that respondent

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

16 Cited authorities

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

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”

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 Bogatin, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the motion court's denial of a pre-answer motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds.