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

1,603 chars

The MBR schedules list 1B as rent-controlled through 2010. The landlord failed to register 1B as rent-stabilized until 2014, when it registered the apartment for that year alone. Then, in January 2015, the landlord retroactively [*31]registered the apartment as rent-stabilized for the years 2012 and 2013. As of the 2017 registration, it is registered as rent-stabilized with Mr. Panozzo as the tenant for the years 2011 through 2016. Since there is nothing in this record that demonstrates as to 1B the kinds of discrepancies apparent between the DHCR registrations and the MBR schedules described above regarding Apartment 11C, it appears that these plaintiffs were the first tenants to occupy Apartment 1B after the last rent-controlled tenant moved out in 2010. Accordingly, it appears that the fair market rent agreed to at the commencement of their tenancy is the initial regulated rent for their rent-stabilized tenancy (RSL 26-512[b][2]). If so, their deadline to challenge the rent amount in a FMRA would have expired in May 2015. However, since the landlord did not move for summary judgment on this issue, this Court may not grant affirmative relief to him. Should Mr. Panozzo and Ms. Marantos fail to prove otherwise at trial, their overcharge damages would be limited to any increase in rent that was not in accordance with RGB guidelines. If they prove that they were overcharged and the landlord fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such overcharge was not willful, they will be entitled to treble damages (RSL 26-516; 9 NYCRR 2526.1[a][3][i]). 10B (Gladstone/Campana):

Other Sections in This Document (169)

Full Text