AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

STEVEN M. WASSERMAN et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. NASON GORDON et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendants.

The adjustment of plaintiffs' regulated rent is not governed by the provisions applicable to an FMRA (Rent Stabilization Code [RSC] [9 NYCRR] § 2522.3), because the time within which an FMRA could be filed expired in 1996, four years after the premises were no longer subject to rent control ( see Levinson v. 390 W. End Assoc., L.L.C., 22 AD3d 397; RSC § 2522.3 [c] [2]). Rather, the current legal rent must be determined under the DHCR default formula upheld in Thornton v. Baron ( 5 NY3d 175), i.e., "the lowest rent charged for a rent-stabilized apartment with the same number of rooms in the same building on the relevant base date" ( Id. at 180 n. 1; see Levinson, supra). Applying the pertinent four-year statute of limitations, the base date as of which the Thornton formula should be applied is on or about January 29, 1997, four years prior to the commencement of this action ( see id.). Therefore, we remand the issue of plaintiffs' initial legal stabilized rent to DHCR for determination in accordance with the Thornton default formula.

We direct plaintiffs to post a bond to cover their potential liability for past use and occupancy at the rate of $1,030.70 per month, as of September 2000, the date they ceased paying rent, and we raise the rate of prospective use and occupancy to the monthly rate of $1,030.70 ( see id.). Our setting of this rate of use and occupancy pendente lite is without prejudice to the rights of either party with respect to the ultimate determination of any issue in this action.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WASSERMAN v. GORDON
(Dec 13, 2005)