You are here: / / Four-Year Statute of Limitations for Rent Overcharge Claim
, ,

Four-Year Statute of Limitations for Rent Overcharge Claim

The Second Department explained the four-year statute of limitations for a rent overcharge claim:

“A rent overcharge claim, whether made in a judicial or administrative forum, is subject to a four-year statute of limitations” (… see CPLR 213-a; Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-516[a][2]). “[T]he Rent Regulation [*2]Reform Act of 1997 (RRRA) (L 1997, ch 116) clarified and reinforced the four-year statute of limitations applicable to rent overcharge claims (see Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516[a])” …, “preclud[ing] a court from examining the rental history of a housing accommodation prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of the rent overcharge complaint” …, except in situations where there are substantial indicia of fraud.

Here, the DHCR [NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal] properly determined that July 17, 2005, was the “base date” of this proceeding, that is, the date four years prior to the filing of the relevant rent overcharge complaint. The DHCR properly refused to examine the rental history of the subject apartment prior to the “base date,” since there is no merit to the petitioner’s contention that there were substantial indicia of fraud in connection with the landlord’s establishment of the amount of the initial legal registered rent… .  Matter of Watson v New York State Div of Hous & Community Renewal…, 2013 NY Slip Op 05828, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

You might also like
THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT PASS TO THE FOREIGN (DELAWARE) CORPORATION AFTER A MERGER AND ACQUISITION OF NEW YORK BUSINESS ENTITIES; THEREFORE THE NEW YORK PARTIES, IN THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST THE ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENTED THEM IN THE TRANSACTION, CAN SEEK ACCESS TO THE ATTORNEYS’ PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE TRANSACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Discussed in Detail
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT.
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON THE REVERSE MORTGAGE WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE NOTE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PROCEEDING LEADING TO THE REVOCATION OF APPELLANT’S ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) AND ADJUDGING HIM A PERSON IN NEED OF SUPERVISION (PINS) FATALLY FLAWED BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS NEVER TOLD OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT (SECOND DEPT).
Show-Up Identification Should Have Been Suppressed—Defendant Was Only Person In the Street, Was In Hand-Cuffs, and Was Surrounded by Police
Analytical Criteria Re: Res Judicata and the Interpretation of a Release Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Law of the Case” Doctrine at the Appellate Level Explained Criteria for Downward Departure in SORA Proceeding Explained