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
1,298 charsUpon defendants’ appeal, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed (109 AD3d 724 [1st Dept 2013]). Citing its decision in Grimm (68 AD3d 29 [1st Dept 2009]) and our decision in Thornton, the Court held that “the four-year statute of limitations is not a bar in a rent overcharge claim where there is significant evidence of fraud on the record”', and that Supreme Court “correctly found that defendants were collaterally estopped from arguing that no fraud existed [,] . . . [and] properly determined the base rent based on the default formula, and deferred the determination of the amount of the overcharge for a hearing” (109 AD3d at 726 [emphasis added and citation omitted]). The Court further concluded that Supreme Court had “properly pierced the corporate veil,” noting that there was “evidence that, through Megan, Ku fraudulently set a rent for [tenants’] *12apartment and that [tenants] were financially injured thereby”; and “properly awarded treble damages and attorneys’ fees” {id. [citation omitted]). On December 12, 2013, the Appellate Division denied defendants’ motion to reargue and certified the following question to us: “Was the order of [the Appellate Division], which unanimously affirmed the order of Supreme Court, properly made?” IL The Four-Year Statute of Limitations