Legal Opinion
Grimm v. State
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 19, 2010PublishedCited by 98 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Ciparick, J.
On this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the rationale employed in Thornton v Baron (5 NY3d 175 [2005]), which allowed the parties to look back farther than four years, applies in a situation where it is alleged that the standard base date rent is tainted by fraudulent conduct on the part of a landlord. We conclude that it does, and that such base date rent may not be used as a basis for calculating subsequent regulated rent if fraud is indeed present.
I
In 1999, prior to the tenancy of petitioner Sylvie Grimm, the rent-stabilized apartment at issue here…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gilman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Thornton v. BaronNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
- Cintron v. CalogeroNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- Levinson v. 390 West End Associates, L.L.C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Grimm v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal Office of Rent AdministrationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
3Cited by98 opinions
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLCNew York Court of Appeals · 2015
- Cintron v. CalogeroNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- Boyd v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalNew York Court of Appeals · 2014
- Matter of Park v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- 435 Cent. Park W. Tenant Assn. v. Park Front Apts., LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
93 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.