Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Citation
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Parent Document
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2025-02-27
Other Sections in This Document (16)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
- Ruggerino v. Prince Holdings 2012, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01180 (2025)
Full Text
736 charsThe trial court properly found that defendant landlord failed to establish that the purported scope of the individual apartment improvements (IAI) exceeded the applicable high rent deregulation threshold for the subject apartment (see Jemrock Realty Co., LLC v Krugman, 13 NY3d 924, 926 [2010]). Specifically, defendant failed to demonstrate how the total cost of a renovation project was apportioned among three apartments, including the subject apartment. Some testimony did suggest that costs were divided evenly among the three apartments. However, this testimony was contradicted by evidence that the work performed differed in the three apartments, such as the addition of a staircase and roof deck was exclusive to one apartment.