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

640 chars
Pigott, J.
(dissenting). The majority holds, apparently on the basis of Thornton v Baron (5 NY3d 175 [2005]) and Matter of Grimm v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off of Rent Admin. (15 NY3d 358 [2010]), that because the tenants “advance a colorable claim of fraud within the meaning of 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” (majority op at 16). Thornton and Grimm do not support that conclusion, and there are strong policy considerations why.