Opinion
10-24-2017
Kristin BREEN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 330 EAST 50TH PARTNERS, L.P., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Sokolski & Zekaria, P.C., New York (Daphna Zekaria of Counsel), for appellant. Kucker & Bruh, LLP, New York (Patrick K. Munson of Counsel), for respondents.
Sokolski & Zekaria, P.C., New York (Daphna Zekaria of Counsel), for appellant.
Kucker & Bruh, LLP, New York (Patrick K. Munson of Counsel), for respondents.
The motion court correctly dismissed the rent overcharge claim, as plaintiff did not meet her burden of coming forward with any indicia of fraud to warrant looking beyond the limitations period for an improper increase in rent (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] ; Matter of Boyd v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 23 N.Y.3d 999, 992 N.Y.S.2d 764, 16 N.E.3d 1243 [2014] ). Neither the sizeable increase in the apartment rent between 1990 and 1991, based in part on apartment improvements, nor plaintiff's mere skepticism about the quality or extent of those improvements, were sufficient to establish a colorable claim of fraud ( Grimm, 15 N.Y.3d at 367, 912 N.Y.S.2d 491, 938 N.E.2d 924 ; Taylor v. 72A Realty Assoc., L.P., 151 A.D.3d 95, 104, 53 N.Y.S.3d 309 [1st Dept.2017] ).
The motion correctly determined that plaintiff's apartment is not rent-stabilized and that she is not entitled to a rent-stabilized lease. Even if the 1990 to 1991 rent increases for improvements were disregarded, and only renewal and vacancy increases applied, defendants demonstrated that the rent would have reached the deregulation threshold by the time plaintiff leased the apartment (see Matter of 18 St. Marks Place Trident LLC v. State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 149 A.D.3d 574, 575, 50 N.Y.S.3d 273 [1st Dept.2017] ).
We modify only to issue a declaration in favor of defendants (see A1 Entertainment LLC v. 27th St. Prop. LLC, 60 A.D.3d 516, 516, 875 N.Y.S.2d 463 [1st Dept.2009] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RICHTER, ANDRIAS, GISCHE, and MOULTON, JJ., concur.