You are here: / / PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE RELIANCE UPON THE INFLATED RENTS DESCRIBED...
, ,

PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE RELIANCE UPON THE INFLATED RENTS DESCRIBED IN THE FILED REGISTRATION STATEMENTS; THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE APARTMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined defendant landlord’s motion to dismiss the complaint alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments should have been granted. The court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the “reliance” element of fraud:

The primary question on this appeal is whether plaintiffs, who allege that the predecessor in interest of defendant 75-25 153rd Street, LLC initially registered an unlawfully inflated “legal regulated rent” for each of their apartments in 2007, have sufficiently alleged, in this action commenced in 2020, the perpetration of “a fraudulent scheme to deregulate” so as to avoid the bar of the four-year lookback rule and to allow recalculation of the legal rent on the base date (in 2016), utilizing the default formula referenced in Regina [35 NY3d 332], as a basis for overcharge damages. We hold that plaintiffs have failed to allege such a fraudulent scheme because neither plaintiffs nor their predecessors in interest could have reasonably relied upon the inflated legal regulated rents on the registration statements. As the Court of Appeals recognized in Regina [35 NY3d 332], reasonable reliance is as much an element of fraud in this context as in others (see id. at 356 n 7 [“Fraud consists of evidence of a representation of material fact, falsity, scienter, reliance and injury”] [emphasis added, internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]). As more fully explained below, the inflation of the legal regulated rents set forth on the publicly filed registration statements was evident from the registration statements themselves, negating the element of reliance as a matter of law. Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01940, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: In this action alleging the fraudulent deregulation of apartments, plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate reliance upon the inflated rents described in the registration statements. Therefore the complaint alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments should have been dismissed.

 

You might also like
SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION AGAINST MORGAN STANLEY ARISING FROM THE LOSS OF $6.2 BILLION FROM HIGH RISK TRADING DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE PRE-SUIT DEMAND WOULD BE FUTILE.
Ambiguous Termination Notice Will Not Trigger Four-Month Article 78 Statute of Limitations
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURED VALVES CONTAINING ASBESTOS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HAD A SMALL OFFICE IN NYC THE VALVES WERE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN CONNECTICUT, WHERE PLAINTIFF LIVED AND WORKED; THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEW YORK AND PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR NEW YORK JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
IN THE CONTEXT OF A LAWSUIT BY THE BOARD MEMBERS OF AN UNINCORPORATED CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, NEITHER THE REAL PROPERTY LAW (RPL) NOR THE BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW (BCL) APPLIES TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT’S DEMAND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES ASSOCIATED WITH DEFENDING THE ACTION; THE BY-LAWS AND THE COMMON LAW RULE THAT THE PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ATTORNEY’S FEES CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for an “Open and Obvious” Defense and an “Intervening or Superseding Cause” Defense Described—Effect of Plaintiff’s Intoxication and Lack of Memory Re: the Accident Discussed
A VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY OF GRAND LARCENY BUT NOT GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE REPUGNANT; INSTRUCTING THE JURY OTHERWISE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK AS STEEL BEAMS WERE BEING HOISTED FROM THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT).
WHERE FRAUD IS THE BASIS OF A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS SIX YEARS (FIRST 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

THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY FOR AN OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT OF... A DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM IS NOT ON THE MERITS AND HAS NO RES...