Montera v. KMR Amsterdam LLC, 193 A.D.3d 102 (2021)

Citation: Montera v. KMR Amsterdam LLC, 193 A.D.3d 102 (2021)
Parent Document: Montera v. KMR Amsterdam LLC, 193 A.D.3d 102 (2021)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2021-02-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4855109/montera-v-kmr-amsterdam-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,079 chars

Footnote 4: Even if common-law fraud must be shown to establish a scheme to defraud, the elements of fraud have been met at this juncture to warrant denial of summary judgment (see Conason v Megan Holding LLC, 25 NY3d 1, 15-16 [2015], supra [owner engaged in a strategy to illegally remove apartments from rent stabilization protection]). It is undisputed that defendant made a misrepresentation of fact that the apartment was a free market rental. Undisputedly, the representation was false, as the apartment had been rent stabilized at least since 2012. Issues of fact are raised as to scienter. Plaintiff maintains that defendant knowingly engaged in a six-year illegal scheme to deregulate the building after Roberts and Gersten. An issue of fact is raised whether plaintiff justifiably relied upon defendant's omission of a material fact, that the apartment was subject to rent stabilization, and that there was justifiable reliance by plaintiff to his detriment upon defendant's representation that the apartment was a free-market rental and not a rent regulated apartment.

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text