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)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 25 N.Y.3d 1 (2015)
Full Text
1,376 charsIn a decision and order dated October 10, 2012, Supreme Court granted tenants summary judgment against defendants on the issue of liability with respect to their overcharge claim and directed an assessment of damages; ordered the issue of reasonable attorneys’ fees held in abeyance until damages were determined; and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment (2012 NY Slip Op 32625[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2012]). Citing Matter of Cintron v Calogero (15 NY3d 347 [2010]), the Judge first held that tenants’ claim was not time-barred *11because “rather than calculating the statutory period from the commencement of the overcharge, such claims are determined backwards, from the date of the first claim of an overcharge” (2012 NY Slip Op 32625 [U], *8). Like Civil Court, Supreme Court identified April 9, 2005 — four years prior to the date when Megan commenced the summary proceeding — as the base date. The Judge concluded that although the rent charged for the comparable apartment proposed by tenants (and not disputed by defendants) was the lawful rent on the base date,4 tenants did not make clear whether they had actually received any portion of the rent abatement awarded by Civil Court, or had considered any lawful rent increases over the relevant four-year period. She therefore decided to conduct a hearing to decide the amount of tenants’ overcharge damages.