Zafra v. Pilkes

Decision Date30 December 1997
Citation666 N.Y.S.2d 633,245 A.D.2d 218
Parties, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,304 Christopher Hart ZAFRA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Simon PILKES, Respondent-Respondent. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, et al., Amici Curiae.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Anthony F. LeCrichia, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Samuel J. Himmelstein, for Respondent.

Marcia P. Hirsch, Martin B. Schneider, Sherwin Belkin, Magda L. Cruz, John C. Gray, Jr., Raun J. Rasmussen, Andrew Scherer, Helaine Barnett, Scott Rosenberg, Judith Goldiner, Collin Bull, Marlen Bodden, Rachel Littman, for amici curiae New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal.

Before MURPHY, P.J., and SULLIVAN, MILONAS and MAZZARELLI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered on or about April 10, 1996, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Howard Malatzky, J.), entered on or about December 25, 1994, dismissing this nonpayment petition after trial, with leave to restore for purposes of determining the amount of any rent overcharge, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, to the extent of precluding consideration of the rental history prior to the four-year period provided by statute, and the matter remanded to the Civil Court for proceedings consistent with the decision herein.

Appellate Term upheld the determination of the Civil Court that neither the four-year Statute of Limitations for rent overcharge complaints (Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516[a][2]; Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] 2526.1[a][2] ) nor the record-keeping provisions relieving a landlord from having to produce records dating back more than four years prior to the most recent registration date (Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516[g] ) prohibits inquiry into the legality of rent increases prior to the four-year period through testimony or other additional proof, for the purpose of determining the extent to which any overcharges prior to the four-year period bear upon the recovery for the four-year period.

However, on June 19, 1997, the Legislature adopted the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997, two provisions of which amended Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516(a)(2) to specifically "preclude examination of the rental history of the housing accommodation prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of the complaint...." These particular...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Dugan v. London Terrace Gardens, L.P.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 17 September 2019
    ...v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 253 A.D.2d 655, 677 N.Y.S.2d 554 [1st Dept. 1998] ; Zafra v. Pilkes , 245 A.D.2d 218, 666 N.Y.S.2d 633 [1st Dept. 1997] ). We reject defendant's contention that the complaint should be dismissed as time-barred. The newly-enacted CPLR 213......
  • In re Hicks
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 11 May 2010
    ...administrative proceedings to which it applies ( see Mengoni, 97 N.Y.2d at 633, 735 N.Y.S.2d 863, 761 N.E.2d 555; Zafra v. Pilkes, 245 A.D.2d 218, 219, 666 N.Y.S.2d 633 [1997] ). That the RRRA's restriction on examinations of rental history of rent-stabilized dwelling units is made applicab......
  • Myers v. Frankel
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • 25 September 1998
    ...legal rent could go back much farther. Zafra v. Pilkes, N.Y.L.J., 4/12/96, p.25, col.3 (App.Term 1st Dept.), aff'd, 245 A.D.2d 218, 666 N.Y.S.2d 633 (App.Div.1st Dept.). This dispute seems to have been resolved by the Legislature in its 1997 amendments. CPLR § 213-a prohibits awards for ove......
  • Bragston Realty Corp. v. Dixon
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • 28 June 1999
    ...interpose his claim within four years of that overcharge, his claim is time-barred (CPLR 213-a; RSL § 26-516[a]; see, Zafra v. Pilkes, 245 A.D.2d 218, 666 N.Y.S.2d 633; Rovito v. Melendez, 175 Misc.2d 279, 669 N.Y.S.2d 779). As a procedural matter, tenant's appeal has been deemed to be from......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT