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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5643825/conason-v-megan-holding-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,176 chars

The dissent protests that neither Thornton nor Grimm carved out a fraud exception from CPLR 213-a’s bar of overcharge claims interposed more than four years after the first overcharge alleged, and that in Thornton we “avoided” this question (dissenting op at 20). We hardly avoided the question, however, as we allowed the Thorntons to pursue a lawsuit against the owner for overcharges more than seven years after the first overcharge alleged, over the owner’s strong objections. The dissent in Thornton certainly recognized this when remonstrating that the Thorntons should have “challenge [d] the rent established by the 1992 lease within four years” (Thornton, 5 NY3d at 183). Similarly, although the dissent frets that our decision today “will have several serious and troublesome ramifications” (dissenting op at 21), the potential untoward consequences mentioned are the same as those identified in the Thornton and Grimm dissents. In short, the arguments advanced and policy concerns expressed by the dissent here were considered and rejected by the majorities in Thornton and Grimm, as the dissenting opinions in those cases make abundantly clear. Collateral Estoppel

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text