41-47 Nick LLC v. Odumosu, 2024 NY Slip Op 24167 (2024)

Citation: 41-47 Nick LLC v. Odumosu, 2024 NY Slip Op 24167 (2024)
Parent Document: 41-47 Nick LLC v. Odumosu, 2024 NY Slip Op 24167 (2024)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9687483/41-47-nick-llc-v-odumosu/ ↗

Full Text

1,105 chars

Based on its interpretation of L 2024, ch 95, § 4, petitioner proposes an argument which it did not previously articulate. Here, petitioner argues that each incarnation of the L 2023, ch 760, Part B, § 2 (b) further removed the word "overcharge" from the text until it ceased to exist in the text of L 2024, ch 95, § 4. Petitioner contends that it is clear from the legislative history and the plain language of the new law that it applies only to overcharges in the context of fraudulent deregulation schemes, and not to overcharges where no significant indicia of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate a premises is extant. (Id. ¶ 10; NYSCEF Doc No. 33, petitioner mem of law at 2.) Citing to Conason v Megan Holding, LLC, 25 NY3d 1 (2015) — the most recent of the three pre-HSTPA Court of Appeals decisions cited by Regina as forming "[t]he rule that . . . under the [pre-HSTPA] law, review of rental history outside the four-year lookback period was permitted only in the limited category of cases where the tenant produced evidence of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate," Regina at 355, petitioner argues:

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text