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
1,436 charsHere, tenants do not just make a generalized claim of fraud. They instead advance a colorable claim of fraud within the meaning of Grimm — i.e., tenants alleged substantial evidence pointing to the setting of an illegal rent in connection with a stratagem devised by Megan to remove tenants’ apartment from the protections of rent stabilization (compare Matter of Partnership 92 LP v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 11 NY3d 859, 860 [2008] [where there was “ample basis” in the record for DHCR to “conclude that, in arguing for a higher base rent, the owner had relied on an illusory tenancy,” the agency properly set the base rent using its default formula], with Matter of Boyd v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 23 NY3d 999 [2014] [DHCR properly declined to examine the apartment’s rental history for fraud where a tenant merely alleged that the registered monthly rent increased from $572 in July 2004 to $1,750 in October 2004]). In light of Thornton and Grimm, Supreme Court in this case properly considered tenants’ counterclaim alleging rent overcharges notwithstanding expiration of the four-year statute of limitations to which such claims are generally subject *17(see Mozes v Shanaman, 21 AD3d 854 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 715 [2006] [CPLR 213-a barred the plaintiff sublessees’ overcharge complaints brought more than four years after each of their separate tenancies commenced]).