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

874 chars

As noted, the Grimm Court held that "there existed substantial indicia of fraud on the record" such that DHCR had "an obligation to ascertain whether the rent on the base date [wa]s a lawful rent" (Grimm, 15 NY3d at 366). The Court further observed that the "base date rent may not be used as a basis for calculating subsequent regulated rent if fraud is indeed present" (id. at 362). Significantly, the plaintiff-tenant was not the tenant who had performed, or from whom the landlord had sought, repairs and improvements (see Matter of Grimm v State, Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 68 AD3d 29, 30 [1st Dept 2009], affd 15 NY3d 358), and the Court did not discuss or mention the plaintiff's reliance.[FN9] As with Thornton, there was no dispute in Grimm as to the amount of rent charged and paid on the base date (15 NY3d at 363; see 68 AD3d at 31).

Other Sections in This Document (169)

Full Text