Serencha Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Serencha Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

260 A.D.2d 244, 687 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3982

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered January 13, 1998, which denied petitioner landlord’s application to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s determination of a rent overcharge, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where, as here, the tenant’s overcharge complaint was filed prior to April 1, 1984, section 33 of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 (L 1997, ch 116), amending Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-516 (a), is inapplicable, and respondent’s review of the rental history is not limited to the four-year period preceding the tenant’s filing of the overcharge complaint (Matter of Greenberg Real Estate v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 258 AD2d 313). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments, including that the apartment first became rent stabilized after the period for which it was unable to provide a rental history, and that the omitted portion of the rental history is de minimis, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered January 13, 1998, which denied petitioner landlord’s application to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s determination of a rent overcharge, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where, as here, the tenant’s overcharge complaint was filed prior to April 1, 1984, section 33 of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 (L 1997, ch 116), amending Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-516 (a), is inapplicable, and respondent’s review of the rental history is not limited to the four-year period preceding the tenant’s filing of the overcharge complaint (Matter of Greenberg Real Estate v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 258 AD2d 313). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments, including that the apartment first became rent stabilized after the period for which it was unable to provide a rental history, and that the omitted portion of the rental history is de minimis, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Serencha Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 260 A.D.2d 244, 687 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

260 A.D.2d 244 (Serencha Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related