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
571 charsDHCR contends that our holding in Thornton should be constrained to the narrow set of circumstances described in that case and that we should limit its application to cases involving illusory tenancies. We disagree and conclude that, where the overcharge complaint alleges fraud, as here, DHCR has an obligation to ascertain whether the rent on the base date is a lawful rent. Accordingly, here, as the Appellate Division concluded, DHCR acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to meet that obligation where there existed substantial indicia of fraud on the record.