Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2018 NY Slip Op 5797 (2018)

Citation: Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2018 NY Slip Op 5797 (2018)
Parent Document: Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2018 NY Slip Op 5797 (2018)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2018-08-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4527194/matter-of-regina-metro-co-llc-v... ↗

Full Text

1,406 chars

While these provisions are detailed and categorical in barring any examination of a unit's rental history beyond the four-year limitations period, the Court of Appeals has carved out an exception for cases where there is evidence that a landlord engaged in a fraudulent scheme to evade rent regulation (Matter of Grimm v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin., 15 NY3d 358, 366 [2010]). In Grimm, the landlord raised the rent-stabilized rent upon vacancy in 2000 from $586.86 to $1,450, far in excess of the allowed increase. The tenants were also given a lease without a rent-stabilized lease rider. In 2004, the petitioner tenant moved into the apartment pursuant to a lease that did not say that the unit was rent-stabilized. The rent remained at $1,450. When the petitioner brought a rent overcharge complaint with DHCR in 2005, the rent administrator applied the four-year limitations period and found the base date rent to be the $1,450 specified in the applicable lease in 2001, and thus found there was no overcharge. The Grimm Court found that there was sufficient evidence that the landlord engaged in a fraudulent scheme to evade rent regulation. In such circumstances, "DHCR has an obligation to ascertain whether the rent on the base date is a lawful rent" (id. at 366). The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed this Court's remand to DHCR for further fact-finding.

Other Sections in This Document (82)

Full Text