Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Fraudulent Rent Registrations
Last month's issue analyzed the Court of Appeals' determination in Thornton v. Baron, invalidating the illusory tenancies. This month, we focus on the court's computation of rent due.
The rent stabilization law and codes have several provisions, some requiring work to reconcile, addressing limitations on overcharge claims and examination of a landlord's rent records. Rent Stabilization Law Sec. 26-516 says that the legal rent for purposes of determining an overcharge shall be the rent in the annual registration statement filed 4 years before the most recent registration statements. Presumably the most recent registration means the one filed right before an overcharge complaint. 26-516(g) says that an owner who has duly registered an apartment only has to keep records for 4 years before the most recent registration. 26-517(f) requires the annual registration to be provided for the tenant then in occupancy. Finally CPLR Sec. 213-a necessitates commencement of an overcharge action within 4 years of the first overcharge alleged and precludes rental examination history beyond 4 years before commencement.
More generally, the Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) has policy provisions that “it shall be construed so as to carry out the intent of the Rent Stabilization Law to ensure that such statute shall not be subverted or rendered ineffective, directly or indirectly … the policy herein expressed shall be implemented with due regard for the preservation of regulated rental housing.” RSC Sec. 2520.3. The Code also prohibits anyone from requiring a tenant to agree as a condition of getting an apartment that it will not be used as a primary residence. Illusory or collusive rental practices which deprive a tenant in possession rights are also barred. RSC Sec.2523.3(b) and (d).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?