Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Citation
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Parent Document
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2010-10-19
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5640524/grimm-v-state/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (33)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
- Grimm v. State, 15 N.Y.3d 358 (2010)
Full Text
741 charsSupreme Court granted the petition, vacated DHCR’s determination and “remanded [the matter] . . . for reconsideration in accordance with [the court’s] decision” (2007 NY Slip Op 34184[U], *5). Supreme Court noted that DHCR’s determination simply calculated the rent by assuming, without actually determining, that the registration in effect on the base date was *364reliable. The court also noted that DHCR did not specifically reject petitioner’s allegations of fraud. The court reasoned, under Thornton v Baron (5 NY3d 175, 181 [2005]), that DH-CR’s failure to consider petitioner’s allegations of fraud and the reliability of the rent charged on the base date warranted remand to the agency for de novo review of the overcharge complaint.