Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Aras v. B-U Realty Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04917 (2023)

Citation
Aras v. B-U Realty Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04917 (2023)
Parent Document
Aras v. B-U Realty Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04917 (2023)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
2023-10-03

Other Sections in This Document (169)

Full Text

1,032 chars
Second, I disagree with the majority that this Court may determine on this record, as a matter of law, that the landlord did not engage in a fraudulent scheme which denied the tenants the benefits of the RSL.[FN1] I further disagree that plaintiffs have not shown sufficient indicia of fraud to permit review of their rent history preceding the base date for each apartment (Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 NY3d 332, 355 [2020]). Rather, I would hold that there are questions of fact as to whether the landlord engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartments or to overcharge the tenant that caused the reliability of the base date rents to be tainted. If the court so finds, the Supreme Court may in turn be required to apply the RSC's default formula (id. at 358-359; 9 NYCRR 2522.6[b][3][i]).[FN2] Accordingly, I would deny summary judgment and remand for the trial court to resolve those issues at trial (see Hess v EDR Assets, 217 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2023]). I