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

1,954 chars

In Conason, the plaintiff commenced an overcharge proceeding against the landlord. The plaintiff had moved into the apartment pursuant to a non-rent stabilized lease at a monthly rent of $1,800, and which indicated the legal regulated rent was $2,000 due to a temporary rent concession rider. Prior to the plaintiff's tenancy, the landlord had created a fictitious tenant and increased the regulated rent from $475.24 to $1,800, based on a fictitious renovation of the apartment. In a prior nonpayment proceeding between the same parties, the Housing Court found that the base date rent was tainted by the landlord's fraudulent acts of creating the fictitious tenant and increasing the rent based on a fictitious renovation. Nevertheless, Housing Court dismissed the rent overcharge complaint without prejudice because the tenant did not evince facts necessary to determine the lowest rent charged for a comparable apartment in the building on the base date in order for the court to apply the default formula. The Supreme Court overcharge complaint was then filed by the tenant. The Conason Court found that the tenants therein "[did] not just make a generalized claim of fraud. They instead advance a colorable claim of fraud within the meaning of Grimm—i.e., tenants alleged substantial evidence pointing to the setting of an illegal rent in connection with a stratagem devised by [the landlord] to remove tenants' apartment from the protections of rent stabilization (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added)[.]" (Conason, 25 NY2d at 16.) In other words, based on the unlawful increase, the apartment was on the precipice of inevitable deregulation. The Conason Court held that, "in light of Thornton and Grimm, Supreme Court in this case properly considered tenants' counterclaim alleging rent overcharges notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of limitations to which such claims are generally subject (internal citation omitted)." (Id.)

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text