Miller v. Pechock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Pechock

282 A.D.2d 259, 723 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3691

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

DecidedApril 10, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 259 (Miller v. Pechock) 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

Miller v. Pechock, 282 A.D.2d 259, 723 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered February 22, 2000, which denied defendant landlord’s motion to vacate or modify the judgment entered October 26, 1999, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The landlord’s motion to vacate or modify the judgment was properly denied for failure to show fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct in its procurement, or other ground for vacat[260]*260ing a judgment under CPLR 5015 (a). The amount of rent, if any, owed for the period between July 1991 and October 1995 can have no possible relevance to the calculation of damages in the judgment, which was limited to overcharges collected by the landlord from 1986 through June 1991. Inasmuch as the August 1996 Division of Housing and Community Renewal order expressly prohibited the tenants from either collecting a judgment or offsetting rent prior to the expiration of the period that the landlord had to seek administrative review, the alleged withholding of rent cannot be considered as an offset of the overcharge. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered February 22, 2000, which denied defendant landlord’s motion to vacate or modify the judgment entered October 26, 1999, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The landlord’s motion to vacate or modify the judgment was properly denied for failure to show fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct in its procurement, or other ground for vacat[260]*260ing a judgment under CPLR 5015 (a). The amount of rent, if any, owed for the period between July 1991 and October 1995 can have no possible relevance to the calculation of damages in the judgment, which was limited to overcharges collected by the landlord from 1986 through June 1991. Inasmuch as the August 1996 Division of Housing and Community Renewal order expressly prohibited the tenants from either collecting a judgment or offsetting rent prior to the expiration of the period that the landlord had to seek administrative review, the alleged withholding of rent cannot be considered as an offset of the overcharge. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 259, 723 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-pechock-nyappdiv-2001.