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

952 chars
*18Civil Court seems to have made findings of fraud to support the conclusion that tenants had shown “an actionable overcharge.” The Judge nonetheless dismissed tenants’ overcharge claim, without prejudice, because they had not submitted proof of the lawful rent on the base date, as is necessary to compute overcharge damages. Consequently, Civil Court’s findings of fraud are not entitled to preclusive effect because two of the four prerequisites for collateral estoppel are unmet: the issues in Civil Court (breach of the warranty of habitability) and Supreme Court (evidence of fraud sufficient to render the rent on the base date unreliable) are not identical (the first condition), and findings of fraud were not necessary to support the judgment entered on the April 8th order, which awarded tenants rent abatement on account of Megan’s breach of the warranty of habitability and directed Megan to remedy code violations (the fourth condition).