You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT BARRED FROM SEEKING RENT OVERCHARGES BASED UPON A 1986...
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT BARRED FROM SEEKING RENT OVERCHARGES BASED UPON A 1986 RENT REDUCTION ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff could seek rent overcharges based upon a 1986 rent reduction order:

… [T]he plaintif’s first cause of action to recover damages for rent overcharges based upon the May 1, 1986, rent reduction order was not barred by the then-applicable four-year statute of limitations and the “look-back rule,” precluding examination of the rental history prior to the four-year period preceding commencement of the action (see former Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516[a][2]; former CPLR 213-a; Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, _____ NY3d _____, 2020 NY Slip Op 02127). Since rent reduction orders impose a continuing obligation on landlords, tenants are entitled to recover for any rent overcharges occurring during the applicable limitations period by reference to rent reduction orders that remain in effect during that period, even if the rent reduction order was initially issued outside the limitations period … . Santana v Fernandez, 2020 NY Slip Op 03383, Second Dept 6-17-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO NOTICE THE PEOPLE WERE GOING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE SHE TYPED IN THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM A DETECTIVE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER WAS NEVER PROPERLY INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AND NEVER WAIVED THAT RIGHT, ORDER OF COMMITMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Emergency Power to Demolish a Building Properly Exercised
Agreement to Pay over $500,000 (Re: Prior Loans Allegedly Made Over a Period Time) Not Enforceable Because the Agreement Did Not Express Any Consideration—Past Consideration Is No Consideration Because the Detriment Did Not Induce the Promise
DRIVER STRUCK AS HE WAS ABOUT TO ENTER HIS PARKED CAR WAS NOT AN OCCUPANT OF THE CAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICY.
Evidence of General Cleaning Practices Is Not Sufficient to Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DIVING UNDER A TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION AS A BROKEN UTILITY POLE WITH LIVE ELECTRIC WIRES WAS BEING HOISTED; THE WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION AND SUPERVISORY CONTROL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE PROPERLY HANDLED A JUROR’S HESITATION WHEN THE JURY WAS POLLED, THE JUROR WAS QUESTIONED BY THE JUDGE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, THE JUDGE DETERMINED THE JUROR WAS NOT UNDER IMPROPER PRESSURE AND SENT THE JURY BACK FOR FURTHER DELIBERATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RETURN OF ENGAGEMENT RING AFTER THE ENGAGEMENT AND MARRIAGE... ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, PROVIDED AN OPINION IN...