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

1,408 chars

From the foregoing pre-Regina decisions and RSC provisions, it is clear that the Court ofAppeals contemplated that a fraudulent overcharge must be rooted in a fraudulent scheme to remove an apartment from regulation. However, certain egregious fact patterns will lend themselves to a finding of fraud in the absence of actual deregulation, or at least raise a question of fact as to whether fraud occurred which requires further investigation even when a unit has not been deregulated. For example, in 435 Central Park West TA v Park Front Apartments, LLC, 183 AD3d 509 (1st Dept 2020), cited by respondent for the proposition that there can exist fraudulent overcharge claims calculated from a base date rent set by the default formula that is not based on a fraudulent scheme to "remove [an apartment] from the protections of rent stabilization[,]" the court denied summary judgment to the landlord on the basis that an issue of fact existed as to whether it had engaged in a fraudulent building-wide scheme, tampered with the program recertification process, and pressured and misled numerous tenants in a 120-unit, federally subsidized complex in order to fraudulently raise the initial rent stabilized rent upon cessation of federal oversight. The enormity of a scheme to remove numerous federally [*9]subsidized affordable apartments from regulation at once is plainly one of those fact patterns.[FN17]

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text