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).

Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC

Making no mention of "decisiveness" formulation

Grimm v. State

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

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

Borden ex rel. Others Similarly Situated v. 400 E. 55th St. Assocs., L.P.

Finding it "premature to dismiss class action allegations before an answer is served or pre-certification discovery has been taken"

Commonwealth of the N. Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

Holding that the phrase “possession or custody” in § 5225(b) requires actual, and not merely constructive, possession

Dixon v. 105 W. 75th St. LLC

In Dixon, the Appellate Division, First Department held that, on a pre-answer motion to dismiss, the landlord satisfied its burden of demonstrating that it made the necessary improvements to qualify for first rent because it established that it substantially altered the character of the apartment in that it connected it to the new penthouse.

Drucker v. Mauro

In Drucker, the parties entered into a lease and rider pursuant to which the plaintiff's rented an apartment from the defendant.

Rangolan v. County of Nassau

In Rangolan v. County of Nassau (96 NY2d 42), this Court held that CPLR 1602 (2) (iv) did not preclude apportionment when a defendant's liability arose from a nondelegable duty because the subsection was a savings provision and not an exception.

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

In Matter of Boyd v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 23 N.Y.3d 999, 992 N.Y.S.2d 764, 16 N.E.3d 1243 (2014), rev'g 110 A.D.3d 594, 973 N.Y.S.2d 609 (1st Dept. 2013), a J–51 case, the Court of Appeals reversed this Court's remand to DHCR for a fact-finding hearing regarding potential fraud and the legality of the base date rent.

Section 2522.4 - Adjustment of legal regulated rent