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
944 charsIn Thornton, this Court held that a lease provision circumventing rent stabilization was void as against public policy, and that the rent registration statement in effect on the base date listing the illegal rent was “a nullity” (Thornton, 5 NY3d at 181). We instructed DHCR to use a default formula to calculate the rent on the base date, which “uses the lowest rent charged for a rent-stabilized apartment with the same number of rooms in the same building on the relevant base date” (id. at 180 n 1). The Court expressly noted that “[o]nly one question is before us: How is the legal regulated rent of the apartment to be established?” (Id. at 180.) The majority opinion did not decide the statute of limitations issue — the lawsuit was brought more than seven years after the first alleged overcharge — and indeed the dissent pointed out that the majority “ignore[d] the four-year limitation” (id. at 183 [Smith and Read, JJ., dissenting]).