Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Full Text

1,016 chars
In particular, here it is alleged that the tenants immediately preceding petitioner paid significantly more than the previously registered rent, and were not given a rent-stabilized lease rider.2 Moreover those tenants were informed that their rent would be higher but for their performance of upgrades and improvements at their own expense. Almost simultaneously with the substantial increase in the rent for the affected unit, the owner ceased filing annual registration statements (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2528.3 [a] [requiring annual registration statements be filed with DHCR]) and later filed several years’ registration statements retroactively after receiving petitioner’s overcharge complaint. Finally, petitioner’s initial lease did not contain a rent-stabilized rider. The combination of these factors should have led DHCR to investigate the legality of the base date rent, rather than blindly using the rent charged on the date four years prior to the filing of the rent overcharge claim.