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
921 charsDHCR also argues that, under the Appellate Division’s holding, any “bump” in an apartment’s rent—even those authorized without prior DHCR approval, such as rent increases upon installation of improvements to an apartment (see Rent Stabilization Law § 26-511 [c] [13])—will establish a colorable claim of fraud requiring DHCR investigation. Again, we disagree. Generally, an increase in the rent alone will not be sufficient to establish a “colorable claim of fraud,” and a mere allegation of fraud alone, without more, will not be sufficient to require DHCR to inquire further. What is required is evidence of a landlord’s fraudulent deregulation scheme to remove an apartment from the protections of rent stabilization. As in Thornton, the rental history may be examined for the limited purpose of determining whether a fraudulent scheme to destabilize the apartment tainted the reliability of the rent on the base date.