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/ ↗

Full Text

796 chars

The majority seemingly tries to temper its holding by saying that “an increase in the rent alone will not be sufficient to establish a ‘colorable claim of fraud’ ” and that “a mere allegation of fraud alone, without more, will not be sufficient to require DHCR to inquire further” (majority op at 367). But obviously it does not take much “more” than an allegation of fraud—there is practically nothing more in this case. The majority adds that what DHCR is supposed to “inquire” about is whether there was a “fraudulent scheme to destabilize the apartment” (id..). It does not say what it takes to prove such a “fraudulent scheme.” Simply a wilful overcharge? A wilful overcharge coupled with the hope that the overcharge will eventually result in the apartment’s escape from rent stabilization?

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text