Landlord-Tenant—Rent Stabilization—’Roberts v. Tishman Speyer’—Fraudulent Overcharge Claim Dismissed—Four Year Look Back Period—No Evidence of Fraudulent Scheme—Landlord Relied on DHCR Regulations
A tenant commenced an action, alleging rent overcharges for his rent-stabilized apartment. He alleged that the subject building had received “real property tax exemptions and abatements under New York City’s J-51 tax benefit program” and that the tenant had not been advised of that when he had entered into the lease. The tenant asserted that there had been “no renovations or improvements” that would entitle the landlord to increase the rent above $719.01. The tenant sought a declaratory judgment stating that the previously collected rents were overcharges, injunctive relief seeking a proper rent-stabilized renewal lease, an order directing the landlord to register the apartment at the current maximum legal rent with the NYS Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), a judgment based on fraud for an overcharge scheme and attorney fees.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
