Vazquez v. Sichel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vazquez v. Sichel

306 A.D.2d 109, 759 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6644

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

DecidedJune 12, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 109 (Vazquez v. Sichel) 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

Vazquez v. Sichel, 306 A.D.2d 109, 759 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered November 21, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this residential rent overcharge action as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 213-a, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s overcharge action, premised upon the base rent (see Matter of Silver v Lynch, 283 AD2d 213, 214 [2001]) for the subject apartment indicated on the registration statement filed by defendant with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal on July 28, 1997, is not time-barred pursuant to CPLR 213-a. Inasmuch as the overcharge action was commenced on July 9, 2001, the July 28, 1997 rent registration filing fell within CPLR 213-a’s four-year limitation period. As the motion court observed, there is nothing to indicate that the rent registered as of July 28, 1997 was not the rent then being paid by a tenant in possession (cf. Matter of McCarthy v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 290 AD2d 313). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered November 21, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this residential rent overcharge action as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 213-a, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s overcharge action, premised upon the base rent (see Matter of Silver v Lynch, 283 AD2d 213, 214 [2001]) for the subject apartment indicated on the registration statement filed by defendant with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal on July 28, 1997, is not time-barred pursuant to CPLR 213-a. Inasmuch as the overcharge action was commenced on July 9, 2001, the July 28, 1997 rent registration filing fell within CPLR 213-a’s four-year limitation period. As the motion court observed, there is nothing to indicate that the rent registered as of July 28, 1997 was not the rent then being paid by a tenant in possession (cf. Matter of McCarthy v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 290 AD2d 313). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 109, 759 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vazquez-v-sichel-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack