§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

7 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. 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”

  5. 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

  6. White v. N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 30376 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

    Index No. 103580/12 Motion Seq. No. 001 02-19-2013 In the Matter of the Application of DONAVIN WHITE, Petitioner, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondents, -and- at 511 WEST 143rd LLC, Respondent. ALICE SCHLESINGER SCHLESINGER, J: This case illustrates the oftentimes harsh result to a tenant whose rent overcharge complaint is restricted by the

  7. Dignam v. 305 Riverside Corp.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 31019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    Index No.: 105503/10 Motion Seq. No.: 001 04-19-2012 MARK DIGNAM and LAURA LEOPARD, Plaintiffs, v. 305 RIVERSIDE CORP. a/k/a 305 RIVERSIDE DR. CORPORATION, Defendants. Doris Ling-Cohan DECISION/ORDER HON. DORIS LING-COHAN, J.S.C.: In this residential landlord/tenant action, defendant moves for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiffs cross-move for partial summary judgment on the complaint (together, motion sequence number 001). For the following reasons, the motion is denied, and