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

764 chars

The thrust of petitioner's argument is that employing the default formula to calculate an overcharge is a punitive remedy which should be employed sparingly, i.e. only where it can be shown that the petitioner knowingly engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate a premises resulting in a fraudulent overcharge. Petitioner points to the egregious nature of the landlord's knowing actions in Thornton v Baron, 5 NY3d 175 (2005), Matter of Grimm v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin., 15 NY3d 358 (2010), and Conason v Megan Holding, LLC, 25 NY3d 1 (2015), as evidence that the courts require a willful, knowing fraudulent scheme, albeit under a less exacting standard that purportedly espoused in Regina and [*7]its progeny.[FN10]

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text