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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9430365/aras-v-b-u-realty-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,335 chars

(Grimm,15 NY3d at 365-366). As relevant here, the Thornton Court also held that application of the default formula was appropriate even though theplaintiffs-subtenants "had unclean hands" (Thornton, 5 NY3d at 181) because they had "made false written statements" indicating that the apartment was not their primary residence (id. at 179). The Court reasoned that "the principle [] establish[ed] here will apply equally to innocent renters looking to succeed illusory tenancies," and a "contrary rule would bring about the rapid removal of many apartments from rent stabilization—at least six such illusory leases have come to light in the [building at issue] alone—undermining the statute's very purpose of preserving a stock of affordable housing" (id. at 181-182). Although the Thornton opinion does not discuss whether the plaintiffs-subtenants relied on any material misrepresentations of the landlord or sublessor, the decision indicates that the plaintiffs were at least to some degree participants in the scheme. Moreover, the motion court's decision suggests that there was no dispute as to the amount of rent paid by the plaintiffs-subtenants on the base date (see Thornton v Baron,2002 WL 34452911 [complaint amended to include landlord as defendant in November 2000, and rent was $3,750 in 1996, the year of the base date]).

Other Sections in This Document (169)

Full Text