Summary
In Bogatin, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the motion court's denial of a pre-answer motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds.
Summary of this case from Chang v. Bronstein Props. LLCOpinion
2012-09-25
Marc BOGATIN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. WINDERMERE OWNERS LLC et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Cullen & Troia, P.C., New York (Wayne L. Desimone of counsel), for appellants. Marc Bogatin, respondent pro se.
Cullen & Troia, P.C., New York (Wayne L. Desimone of counsel), for appellants. Marc Bogatin, respondent pro se.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 8, 2011, which denied defendants' pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court properly looked beyond the four-year period prior to the filing of the rent overcharge complaint ( seeCPLR 213–a; Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26–516[a][2] ) since, in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that defendants had engaged in a fraudulent scheme to remove the subject apartment from rent regulation ( see Matter of Grimm v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin., 15 N.Y.3d 358, 912 N.Y.S.2d 491, 938 N.E.2d 924 [2010] ). Plaintiff's allegations that defendants falsely claimed to have undertaken substantial improvements prior to his tenancy were supported by, among other things, plaintiff's affidavit and a contractor's estimate. At this stage of the proceeding, the court properly denied defendants' motion, affording plaintiff the opportunity to engage in discovery on the issue of the alleged fraudulent deregulation.