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

1,213 chars

There are two possible ways to understand footnote seven. Under one interpretation, adopted by the majority, Regina's footnote seven announced—for Roberts and non-Roberts cases alike—the elements of a fraudulent deregulation claim notwithstanding that the plaintiffs in those cases Regina cited with approval (Thornton, Grimm, and Conason) would not have met at least one of the elements purportedly established—namely, reliance. Alternatively, we can understand that Regina's footnote seven quoted a common-law fraud case for the purpose of illustrating, by way of contrast, the enormous distinction between ordinary notions of fraud and a Roberts deregulation—that is, a deregulation based on (ultimately erroneous) guidance from the very agency tasked with regulating compliance with the body of law at issue.[FN10] In my view, the latter interpretation is better supported by the landscape of precedent.[FN11] However, assuming that the majority is correct that the Court of Appeals meant to use Regina's footnote seven to set forth what a plaintiff-tenant must show to establish a fraudulent deregulation claim, that pronouncement must be squared with the reaffirmed holdings of Thornton, Grimm, and Conason.

Other Sections in This Document (169)

Full Text