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

1,051 chars

As tenants urge, however, the trial record in Civil Court is replete with evidence of the illegality of the rent charged by Megan for tenants’ apartment on the base date. This evidence is unrefuted. And Megan enjoyed ample opportunity to contest tenants’ proof at trial, despite defendants’ protestations to the contrary. As a result, whatever the minimum scope of the inquiry that must be made by the courts or DHCR to resolve an overcharge claim where fraud has been alleged and there exist substantial indicia of fraud on the record, and whatever minimum quantum of evidence is required for a tenant to establish fraud sufficient to taint the reliability of the rent on the base date (see Grimm, discussed earlier), these thresholds have been crossed here: Civil Court made extensive findings of fraud based on a record developed at a trial, which afforded both sides the opportunity (even though shunned by defendants) to submit evidence and present and cross-examine witnesses regarding the apartment’s rental history. Piercing the Corporate Veil

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text