Posted by Anna on June 15, 2000 at 17:44:01:
In Reply to: Overturning 4-Year Statute posted by mjr on June 14, 2000 at 10:41:55:
: Due to being shut out myself by 1997 4-year statute, began researching the matter. While reading case law, found a particularly blatant case in which the landlord must have provided money to someone at DHCR to hold up case until 1997 statute passed: See 1/20/99 ruling in "Matter of Orin Management Corporation v. DHCR." To summarize, tenant brought overcharge claim against landlord in 1984: Due to length of time for response by landlord and dragging of feet by DHCR, the case was still being considered when 1997 statute took effect, and since the statute was retroactive and the tenant had not filed until 5 1/2 years after initial overcharge, DHCR ultimately ruled against tenant. It seems so obvious to me that something fraudulent occurred here, but the DHCR doesn't care. I am ashamed to say I was sleeping when this happened. But now that I'm awake, I think we need to organize to overturn the statute. Ideas?
The shame is that even when presented with obvious fraud, a couple of courts have decided that the CPLR and RSL 4-year rules took precedence. Fraud has a SIX year statute of limitations. Landlord fraud should not be exempt.
PS: little remembered fact: the precedent in the Appellate Term, First Division, Manhattan and da Bronx, is more than four years because the court decided that each month that contains the illegal increase is a new violation. Read about this case: Negron v Goldman.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup