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

1,039 chars

In Grimm, we held that where “substantial indicia of fraud [exist] on the record” and “the overcharge complaint alleges fraud, . . . DHCR has an obligation to ascertain whether the rent on the base date is a lawful rent” (Grimm, 15 NY3d at 366). In that case, however, petitioner’s action was not barred by the statute of limitations, since it was brought well within four years following the first alleged rent overcharge. The ques*20tion was whether DHCR could examine the rental history of the housing accommodation prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of a complaint, so as to determine whether the rent on the base date was itself an overcharge. We said it could and should, but, necessarily, we did not address the statute of limitations. The Court “merely conclude[d] that DHCR acted arbitrarily in disregarding the nature of petitioner’s allegations and in using a base date without, at a minimum, examining its own records to ascertain the reliability and the legality of the rent charged on that date” (id. at 367).

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text