overcharge claim in New York

2021DHCR rationally concluded that petitioner had overcharged the tenant, based on a 1994 rent reduction order in effect during the four-year period preceding the filing of the overcharge claim ( see Scott v Rockaway Pratt, LLC , 17 NY3d 739 [2011]; Matter of Cintron v Calogero , 15 NY3d 347 [2010]).

2021DHCR rationally concluded that petitioner had overcharged the tenant, based on a 1994 rent reduction order in effect during the four-year period preceding the filing of the overcharge claim ( see Scott v Rockaway Pratt, LLC , 17 NY3d 739 [2011]; Matter of Cintron v Calogero , 15 NY3d 347 [2010]).

2024They 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." ( Conason , 25 NY3d at 16 .) The Conason Court also understood the desirability of recognizing the fluid nature of the totality of the circumstances test: "[ W ] hatever the minimum scope of the inquiry that must be made by the courts or DHCR to resolve an overcharge claim where fraud has been alleged and

2024They 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." ( Conason , 25 NY3d at 16 .) The Conason Court also understood the desirability of recognizing the fluid nature of the totality of the circumstances test: "[ W ] hatever the minimum scope of the inquiry that must be made by the courts or DHCR to resolve an overcharge claim where fraud has been alleged and

2024Waiver of these defenses, if done so improvidently, may result in a stipulation being set aside ( cf. Rossmill Assoc., LP v Watanabe , — NYS3d &mdash, 2024 NY Slip Op 24048 [Civ Ct NY County 2024] [denying a motion to vacate because the respondent did not improvidently waive an overcharge defense since this defense was carefully explained to the respondent]).

2024Waiver of these defenses, if done so improvidently, may result in a stipulation being set aside ( cf. Rossmill Assoc., LP v Watanabe , — NYS3d —, 2024 NY Slip Op 24048 [Civ Ct NY County 2024] [denying a motion to vacate because the respondent did not improvidently waive an overcharge defense since this defense was carefully explained to the respondent]).

2022Thus, "the lowest rent charged for a rent-stabilized apartment with the same number of rooms in the same building" in October 2012 is the base date rent for the purpose of calculating the award to tenant ( Thornton , 5 NY3d at 180 n 1).

2010In Thornton v Baron ( 5 NY3d 175 [2005]) and Matter of Cintron v Calogero ( 15 NY3d 347 [2010] [decided today]), the Court carved out exceptions to the command of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 that a rent charged more than four years before a tenant complains may not be considered in deciding an overcharge claim.

2021DHCR rationally concluded that petitioner had overcharged the tenant, based on a 1994 rent reduction order in effect during the four-year period preceding the filing of the overcharge claim ( see Scott v Rockaway Pratt, LLC , 17 NY3d 739 [2011]; Matter of Cintron v Calogero , 15 NY3d 347 [2010]).

2021DHCR rationally concluded that petitioner had overcharged the tenant, based on a 1994 rent reduction order in effect during the four-year period preceding the filing of the overcharge claim ( see Scott v Rockaway Pratt, LLC , 17 NY3d 739 [2011]; Matter of Cintron v Calogero , 15 NY3d 347 [2010]).

2013The court properly pierced the corporate veil (James v Loran Realty V Corp., 20 NY3d 918 [2012]).

2013The court properly pierced the corporate veil (James v Loran Realty V Corp., 20 NY3d 918 [2012]).

2025DHCR regulations that are contrary to law are invalid and unenforceable (see Samson Mgt., LLC v Hubert, 92 AD3d 932 [2d Dept 2012]).3 Accordingly, RSC § 2526.7(a)(1) and (2) cannot be applied to work an end run around the appellate courts’ interpretation of Regina, namely that review of the rental history outside a base date four years prior to interposition of an overcharge claim for money damages premised on conduct that transpired pre-HSTPA is cabined by former RSL § 26-516 and CPLR 213-a, subject only to the common law regulatory fraud exception.

2020However, attorneys’ fees are no longer at issue in Taylor or Reich, in which there is no recoverable overcharge, or in Raden, where the tenants abandoned their request for attorneys’ fees by failing to move specifically for such relief in Supreme Court. - 53 - - 54 - Nos. 1-4 reaches “particularly far” into the past and that imposes liability of a high magnitude relative to impacted parties’ conduct raises “substantial questions of fairness” (Eastern Enters., 524 US at 534 ).

2015Citing its decision in Grimm ( 68 AD3d 29 [1st Dept 2009]) and our decision in Thornton , the Court held that “the four-year statute of limitations is not a bar in a rent overcharge claim where there is significant evidence of fraud on the record”', and that Supreme Court “correctly found that defendants were collaterally estopped from arguing that no fraud existed [,] . . . [and] properly determined the base rent based on the default formula, and deferred the determination of the amount of the overcharge for a hearing” (109 AD3d at 726 [emphasis added and citation omitted]).

2005In addition, treble damages for willful overcharges were imposed on owners who failed to provide complete rent records for more than the four-year period before the overcharge claim (see Matter of Gattiboni v Aponte, 188 AD2d 434 [1992]).

2004(Matter of AVJ Realty Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 8 AD3d 14 [1st Dept 2004].) Petitioner has failed to show that the rent set forth in its demand notice or in the petition is a legal regulated rent.

1998While the tenant who has not filed an administrative complaint may raise a claim of rent overcharge affirmatively (Wolfisch v Mailman, 182 AD2d 533 ; see also, Draper v Georgia Props., 230 AD2d 455 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 849 ) or by way of counterclaim in a proceeding commenced by the landlord (e.g., 350 Ocean Parkway Assn. v Stein, 55 NY2d 650 ; Severin v Rouse, 134 Misc 2d 940 [Tom, J.]; Kolbert v Clayton, 127 Misc 2d 1036 [Saxe, J.]), where a tenant elects to proceed before the agency, the legislative scheme provides for administrative determination of the tenant’s overcharge claim, wit

1998While the tenant who has not filed an administrative complaint may raise a claim of rent overcharge affirmatively (Wolfisch v Mailman, 182 AD2d 533 ; see also, Draper v Georgia Props., 230 AD2d 455 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 849 ) or by way of counterclaim in a proceeding commenced by the landlord (e.g., 350 Ocean Parkway Assn. v Stein, 55 NY2d 650 ; Severin v Rouse, 134 Misc 2d 940 [Tom, J.]; Kolbert v Clayton, 127 Misc 2d 1036 [Saxe, J.]), where a tenant elects to proceed before the agency, the legislative scheme provides for administrative determination of the tenant’s overcharge claim, wit

1998While the tenant who has not filed an administrative complaint may raise a claim of rent overcharge affirmatively (Wolfisch v Mailman, 182 AD2d 533 ; see also, Draper v Georgia Props., 230 AD2d 455 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 849 ) or by way of counterclaim in a proceeding commenced by the landlord (e.g., 350 Ocean Parkway Assn. v Stein, 55 NY2d 650 ; Severin v Rouse, 134 Misc 2d 940 [Tom, J.]; Kolbert v Clayton, 127 Misc 2d 1036 [Saxe, J.]), where a tenant elects to proceed before the agency, the legislative scheme provides for administrative determination of the tenant’s overcharge claim, wit

1998While the tenant who has not filed an administrative complaint may raise a claim of rent overcharge affirmatively (Wolfisch v Mailman, 182 AD2d 533 ; see also, Draper v Georgia Props., 230 AD2d 455 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 849 ) or by way of counterclaim in a proceeding commenced by the landlord (e.g., 350 Ocean Parkway Assn. v Stein, 55 NY2d 650 ; Severin v Rouse, 134 Misc 2d 940 [Tom, J.]; Kolbert v Clayton, 127 Misc 2d 1036 [Saxe, J.]), where a tenant elects to proceed before the agency, the legislative scheme provides for administrative determination of the tenant’s overcharge claim, wit

1998While the tenant who has not filed an administrative complaint may raise a claim of rent overcharge affirmatively (Wolfisch v Mailman, 182 AD2d 533 ; see also, Draper v Georgia Props., 230 AD2d 455 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 849 ) or by way of counterclaim in a proceeding commenced by the landlord (e.g., 350 Ocean Parkway Assn. v Stein, 55 NY2d 650 ; Severin v Rouse, 134 Misc 2d 940 [Tom, J.]; Kolbert v Clayton, 127 Misc 2d 1036 [Saxe, J.]), where a tenant elects to proceed before the agency, the legislative scheme provides for administrative determination of the tenant’s overcharge claim, wit

1996There being no proof of filing of a late registration, landlord may not invoke the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1993 (see, Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-517 (e)], as amended by L 1993, ch 253) as a defense to tenants’ overcharge claim (cf., DBL Realty Corp. v Zavala, 166 Misc 2d 736 [App Term, 1st Dept]).