Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)

Citation
Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
Parent Document
Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
2015-02-24

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text

651 chars
The Judge then cited Grimm for the proposition that “where the rent on the base date is affected by fraud, the DHCR (and, by implication, [Civil Court], which has concurrent jurisdiction with the DHCR over rent overcharge claims) has an obligation to investigate the legality of the base date rent.” She opined that Grimm “clearly . . . appli[ed]” because Megan “created an entirely fictitious tenant [i.e., Suzuki Oki] and at least one entirely fictitious apartment renovation in 2003 in order to boost the regulated rent from $475.24 per month ... to $1[,]800.00.” Consequently, the “rent on the base date was obviously affected by [Megan’s] fraud.”