Mozes v. Shanaman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mozes v. Shanaman

21 A.D.3d 854, 804 N.Y.S.2d 3

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 854 (Mozes v. Shanaman) 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

Mozes v. Shanaman, 21 A.D.3d 854, 804 N.Y.S.2d 3 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered August 5, 2004, which, in these actions consolidated for the disposition of the subject summary judgment motions, granted the motions of defendant landlords for summary judgment dismissing the complaints as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

“The four-year Statute of Limitations applicable to both administrative and judicial rent overcharge claims, by its terms, commences to run with the ‘first overcharge alleged’ ” (Matter of Brinckerhoff v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 275 AD2d 622, 622 [2000] [citations omitted], lv [855]*855denied 96 NY2d 712 [2001]). Since the first overcharges alleged by plaintiff tenants occurred no later than 1996, these actions commenced in 2003 are time-barred (CPLR 213-a). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered August 5, 2004, which, in these actions consolidated for the disposition of the subject summary judgment motions, granted the motions of defendant landlords for summary judgment dismissing the complaints as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

“The four-year Statute of Limitations applicable to both administrative and judicial rent overcharge claims, by its terms, commences to run with the ‘first overcharge alleged’ ” (Matter of Brinckerhoff v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 275 AD2d 622, 622 [2000] [citations omitted], lv [855]*855denied 96 NY2d 712 [2001]). Since the first overcharges alleged by plaintiff tenants occurred no later than 1996, these actions commenced in 2003 are time-barred (CPLR 213-a). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 854, 804 N.Y.S.2d 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mozes-v-shanaman-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack