§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. 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).

  2. 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

  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. Drucker v. Mauro

    30 A.D.3d 37 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 92 times
    In Drucker, the parties entered into a lease and rider pursuant to which the plaintiff's rented an apartment from the defendant.

  5. 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”

  6. Riverside Syndicate v. Munroe

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1028 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 64 times
    Noting that the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions "does not make an agreement that was void at its inception valid by the mere passage of time"

  7. 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

  8. 390 West End Associates v. Harel

    298 A.D.2d 11 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 33 times

    5578 July 11, 2002 Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered May 18, 2001, which denied its motion to vacate a 1988 consent judgment purporting to recognize and validate the non-primary residence status of the subject apartment. Magda L. Cruz, of counsel (Jay H. Berg and Howard Wenig, on the brief, Belkin Burden Wenig Goldman, LLP, attorneys) for plaintiff-appellant, H. Richard Penn, of counsel (Daniel J. Ansell, on the brief, Greenberg Traurig

  9. Grimm v. State of N.Y

    68 A.D.3d 29 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 18 times

    No. 5419. September 24, 2009. APPEAL from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered January 11, 2008. The order and judgment vacated a determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) denying petitioner's rent overcharge complaint and remanded the matter to DHCR to consider whether the registration statement for petitioner's apartment on the base date was reliable. Matter of Grimm v State of N.Y. Div

  10. 506 W. 150TH St., LLC v. Prier

    36 Misc. 3d 1201 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    No. L & T 062761/12. 2012-06-22 506 WEST 150TH STREET, LLC & Eton 102 LLC as Tenant in Common, Petitioners–Landlord v. Keondra PRIER, Respondent–Tenant. Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal PC, Forest Hills, for Petitioner. Keondra Prier, New York, Respondent Pro Se. SABRINA B. KRAUS Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal PC, Forest Hills, for Petitioner. Keondra Prier, New York, Respondent Pro Se. SABRINA B. KRAUS, J. BACKGROUND This summary nonpayment proceeding was commenced by 506 WEST 150TH