Burrows v. 75-25 153rd St., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 03861 (2025)

Citation: Burrows v. 75-25 153rd St., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 03861 (2025)
Parent Document: Burrows v. 75-25 153rd St., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 03861 (2025)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2025-06-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10624627/burrows-v-75-25-153rd-st-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,561 chars

As to Waller's claim for overcharges based on defendant's withdrawal of a rent concession in his renewal lease, the complaint adequately alleged facts that could support a finding that the two-month concession was in fact a preferential rent by another name (see Chernett v Spruce 1209, LLC, 200 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2021]). Contrary to defendant's [*2]contention, the concession differs significantly from the concession offered in Flynn v Red Apple 670 Pac. St., LLC (200 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2021]). There, the concession rider stated in relevant part that the "One-Time Concession is granted solely in consideration for Tenant entering into the Lease for the apartment located in a new building which was completing construction" in order to compensate the tenant for dust, debris, noise, and any potential loss of services during the construction period (id. at 608). Here, Waller's concession was "incorporated into and made a part of the Lease," not tied to specific months, and defendant made no showing of the parties' intention to limit the concession solely to that lease term so as to distinguish it from a preferential rent under the HSTPA amendments to Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-511(c)(14). Defendant also did not utterly refute plaintiffs' allegation that the concession was part of a scheme to avoid registering the actual rent charged and paid, as plaintiffs presented at least one other example of defendant's use of a concession to advertise a lower "net effective" rent (see Chernett, 200 AD3d at 597).

Other Sections in This Document (27)

Full Text