603 N.J. Ave. v. Hall

• Decision Date: 01 April 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-47 K C
• Citation: 603 N.J. Ave. v. Hall, 2022 NY Slip Op 50303(U), 2021-47 K C (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr 01, 2022)
• Parties: 603 New Jersey Avenue, LLC, Appellant, v. Samuel C. Hall, Respondent, and Charlotte Burke-Hall, Tenant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2022 NY Slip Op 50303(U)

603 New Jersey Avenue, LLC, Appellant, v. Samuel C. Hall, Respondent, and Charlotte Burke-Hall, Tenant.

No. 2021-47 K C

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

April 1, 2022

Unpublished Opinion

Wenig Saltiel, LLP(Meryl L. Wenig of counsel), for appellant.

The Legal Aid Society (Alicia Mason of counsel), for respondent.

PRESENT:: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTONDONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New YorkKings County(Marc Finkelstein, J.), dated January 14, 2020.The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief granted tenant's motion for leave to conduct discovery in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed without costs.

In this nonpayment proceeding, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, tenant Samuel C. Hall^[1] moved for leave to conduct discovery relating to overcharge affirmative defenses and counterclaims.As limited by its brief, landlord appeals from so much of an order dated January 14, 2020 as granted tenant leave to conduct discovery.

Since this proceeding was commenced in 2018, before the enactment of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019(L 2019, ch 36, § 1, part F), tenant's overcharge claim is generally limited to the four-year look-back period in examining the rental history of the apartment (seeRent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY]§ 26-516 [a][2];Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 N.Y.3d 332[2020];Rossman v Windermere Owners LLC, 187 A.D.3d 527[2020]).An exception to the foregoing rule exists, however, where "a landlord has engaged in fraud in initially setting the rent or removing an apartment from rent regulation," in which case a court may review the rental history for an apartment beyond the four-year statutory period (Kreisler v B-U Realty Corp., 164 A.D.3d 1117, 1117[2018];seeMatter of Grimm v State of NY Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin., 15 N.Y.3d 358[2010];40-40-40-38 78th St., LLC v Murillo, 72 Misc.3d 127[A], 2021NY Slip Op50578[U][App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists2021]).

Since a summary proceeding is a special proceeding (seeRPAPL 701 [1]), disclosure is permitted by "[l]eave of court"(CPLR 408) upon a showing of ample need (seeMautner-Glick Corp. v Higgins, 64 Misc.3d 16, 18[App Term, 1st Dept2019];Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund Corp. v Okolie, 2003 NY Slip Op50707[U][App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists2003];New York Univ.v Farkas, 121 Misc.2d 643, 647[Civ Ct, NY County1983]).Here, by demonstrating a 47.9% unexplained increase in rent from the immediately preceding tenant to tenant herein, a failure to file any registrations for several years, and what the Civil Court characterized as "multiple and unclear registrations," tenant has alleged a colorable claim of fraud in the initial setting of...