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

1,162 chars

While I agree with the majority that the sworn MBR statements, standing alone, do not establish as a matter of law that the landlord engaged in fraud, they strongly suggest that there was another tenant preceding Arnot and Hirsch to whom the FMRA time limitations would have applied and whose tenancy should have been treated as rent stabilized. The alternative explanation is that 11C sat empty after the last rent-controlled tenant vacated in 2005 until Arnot and Hirsch moved in in 2013. This would be a highly unlikely circumstance which the landlord has neither claimed nor explained. Furthermore, the fact that the landlord failed to provide Arnot and Hirsch with rent-stabilized leases and renewals in the years 2013 through 2019, many years after the landlord was admittedly aware of his obligation to do so, also raises a question of fact as to whether the landlord engaged in a fraudulent scheme. Accordingly, I would deny summary judgment as to Arnot and Hirsch's overcharge claim, and remand for a trial on the issue of whether the landlord engaged in a fraudulent scheme requiring application of the default formula. Apartment 1B (Panozzo/Marantos):

Other Sections in This Document (169)

Full Text