Rosenzweig v 305 Riverside Corp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rosenzweig v 305 Riverside Corp. 2013 NY Slip Op 31949(U) August 16, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 116367-2009 Judge: George J. Silver Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SCANNED ON 812012013 10 116367-2009 MOTION DATE 006 MOTION SEQ. NO. of Motion/ Order to 52221(d) and (e) for an s prior Order dated June 14,2012 and upon 305 Riverside Corp. ummary judgment and asked the Court to s second, third, and pellate Term s decision in 72A . 201 1) ( Lucus )held ourt found that the the record doesn t clearly r treble damages, finding that the record NON-FINAL DISPOSITION I [* 2] inquiry was required to It of reasonable reliance on a DHCR regulation. when it refimed to recognize Plaintiffs Court limited its inquiry into ne proper rent) to the four years prior to historical rent charged is found to be unlawful void and therefore, the Court art of Defendant caused the aintiff argues that once the ( Roberts ) decision came status was willful. hange in the law which argues he is entitled to es that Defendant nce of the renovations the contractors alleged charges. The Appellate f the apartment should be examined where the Plaintiff argues that lete examination for plication to the Court lacks merit. Defendant December 4,2007 for the period from January ies entered into the that landlords and ized apartment above $2OOO/month after gues that the Appellate Division s decision in ts expert, Frederick Porcello, who stated d for rent for the Plaintiffs [* 3] it arrived at the new use and occupancy rate by cy allowance ($435.7 l), plus rent stabilization estimated renovation amount ($2,236.81.) gue...shall be based upon determining the prior mo ... Pursuant to CPLRs222 1(e) A motion on the prior motion that would change the en a change in the law that would change the for the failure to present such facts on the oves pursuant to CPLR§2221(d) and (e). e simultaneously receiving tax apartment. Post-Roberts, e apartments that were ediately preceding the d only look past the four year [where] there is doubt as to 1, the court may examine the rental history prior ining whether a fkaudulent scheme to mty. Renewal Office 2010)) In those cases, the e lowest rent charged for a rent-stabilized t base date. (Altschuler, 397, 802 N.Y.S.2d 659,662 (1st Dep t [* 4] ase date rent where an apartment is artment from 19 ecessary to look at n increased the re that rental increase was nly to the time Plaintiff entered evidence that the prior tenant s the Defendant increased the rent above the Lucas, did not intend for every ory. Rather, it vacated the e been completed solely to alify for luxury decontrol and dant concedes that they s rent was already over the ded the law or the facts in e base date rent over e overcharge was not willful, the state whether the overcharge was not willful, but rather theiresult of reasonable reliance on a DHCR I not one which brought the rent over dlord did anything other than rely on e Court s inquiry into the rental ent was under the $2,000 threshold and t to the Lucas decision, Defendant rlying motion, Defendant included an ovation work in the amount of ndant s expert Frederick cello included Cost Esti 59 1.17. Defendant also d for work was actually t by attaching copies of checks to its motion he proper rent stabilized rent, the claim of treble [* 5] on renewal, the court adheres to ng on October 22,2013 at 2:OO PM at 60 007; and it is further I
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
