From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Theoharidou v. Newgarden

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
Feb 6, 1998
176 Misc. 2d 97 (N.Y. App. Term 1998)

Opinion


176 Misc.2d 97 673 N.Y.S.2d 813 Fotini THEOHARIDOU, Appellant, v. Anne NEWGARDEN, Respondent. 1998-98,263 Supreme Court of New York, First Department Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, February 6, 1998.

[673 N.Y.S.2d 814]Charles H. Small, New York City, for appellant.

Jeffrey McAdams, New York City, for respondent.

Before PARNESS, P.J., and McCOOE and FREEDMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Final judgment entered June 24, 1996 (Margaret Taylor, J.) reversed, with $10 costs, tenant's motion for summary judgment is denied, the nonpayment petition is reinstated, and the award for rent overcharge is vacated.

Appeal from order entered October 29, 1996 (Margaret Taylor, J.) denying reargument dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable.

Tenant's rent overcharge claim below was based entirely upon an increase in the registered rent from $235.71 in 1984 to $670 in 1985, the year tenant commenced occupancy. Civil Court granted summary judgment in tenant's favor on the overcharge, finding that landlord "ha[d] failed to show any justification for the rent increase". Subsequent to this decision, the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 was enacted. As here relevant, Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516(a) was amended to provide that "... no determination of an overcharge and no award or calculation of an award ... may be based upon an overcharge having occurred more than four years before the complaint is filed." The amendment further "preclude[s] examination of the rental history of the housing accommodation prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of a complaint ...".

These provisions were expressly made applicable to "any action or proceeding pending in any court ... on the effective date of this act ...", i.e., to proceedings pending on June 19, 1997 (Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997, § 46[1] ). Since the rent overcharge claim relates solely to a 1985 increase, which may not now be considered in calculating an overcharge award, the claim is barred (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).


Summaries of

Theoharidou v. Newgarden

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
Feb 6, 1998
176 Misc. 2d 97 (N.Y. App. Term 1998)
Case details for

Theoharidou v. Newgarden

Case Details

Full title:Theoharidou v. Newgarden

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

Date published: Feb 6, 1998

Citations

176 Misc. 2d 97 (N.Y. App. Term 1998)
673 N.Y.S.2d 813