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

756 chars
The dissent accused the majority of going “far beyond” Thornton and Cintron, a case where two rent reduction orders issued within four years of the start of the rent-stabilized tenancy remained in effect when the tenant filed an overcharge complaint more than a decade later.6 In the dissent’s view, the majority had improperly equated “fraud” with a willful overcharge, and if it had not essentially repealed the four-year limitations period — a charge the majority took pains to reject — it had created a situation where, if fraud is alleged and substantial indicia of fraud exist on the record, DHCR would be compelled to conduct a “mini-litigation ... to figure out whether the overcharge was ‘fraudulent’ enough to escape the time limit” (id. at 369).