Benaresh v. New York City Loft Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Benaresh v. New York City Loft Board

92 A.D.3d 519, 938 N.Y.2d 429

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 519 (Benaresh v. New York City Loft Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benaresh v. New York City Loft Board, 92 A.D.3d 519, 938 N.Y.2d 429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[520]*520Respondent’s order setting the current base rent of the loft unit pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law § 286 (2) and 29 RCNY 2-06 was supported by substantial evidence, including a copy of the lease showing the rent most recently paid and accepted by the owner at the time of the enactment of the Loft Law (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]). The petitioner, who commenced this rent dispute application, and who had the burden of proof, failed to demonstrate that the Loft Board’s order reducing the tenant’s rent was not valid because of the tenant’s laches, waiver or estoppel. Nor does the statute of limitations of CPLR 213-a apply to units subject to Loft Board rent regulation (see Matter of Nur Ashki Jerrahi Community v New York City Loft Bd., 80 AD3d 323 [2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[520]*520Respondent’s order setting the current base rent of the loft unit pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law § 286 (2) and 29 RCNY 2-06 was supported by substantial evidence, including a copy of the lease showing the rent most recently paid and accepted by the owner at the time of the enactment of the Loft Law (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]). The petitioner, who commenced this rent dispute application, and who had the burden of proof, failed to demonstrate that the Loft Board’s order reducing the tenant’s rent was not valid because of the tenant’s laches, waiver or estoppel. Nor does the statute of limitations of CPLR 213-a apply to units subject to Loft Board rent regulation (see Matter of Nur Ashki Jerrahi Community v New York City Loft Bd., 80 AD3d 323 [2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 519, 938 N.Y.2d 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benaresh-v-new-york-city-loft-board-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack