In the never ending twists and turns of New York City’s housing law, once case continues to generate headlines. Warren Estis and Jeffrey Turkel’s rent regulation column addresses Roberts v. Tishman and so much more
Many tenants in post-Roberts cases allege that the owner engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment, apparently believing that owners should have known better than to abide by DHCR’s interpretation of law. The significance of a finding of fraud is that the tribunal, in order to determine the legal rent, can examine the rental history of the apartment prior to the four-year period preceding the overcharge complaint (see Grimm v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 15 NY3d 358, 365 [2010]). Breaching the four-year look-back period usually results in a lower rent and a larger refund.
