Case Type

Overcharge

Housing Type

Rent Stabilized

Court

Appellate Division, First Department

County

New York County (Manhattan)

L&T / Index / Case / Docket / Clerk's Number

656345/16

Slip Opinion Number

2026 NY Slip Op 02206

Petitioner

Theresa Maddicks, et al.

Respondent

106-108 Convent BCR, LLC, et al.

Judge

Webber, Jeffrey, P.; Gesmer, Judith, A.; Mendez, Manuel, J.; Pitt-Burke, Tanya, R.; Hagler, Michael, J.; Kraus, Sabrina, B.

Decision/Order Date

2026-04-14

Posture

Post-answer Motion by Tenant

Disposition

Motion Granted for Landlord

Winner

Landlord Substantially Won

Synopsis

The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of tenants' motion, seeking a declaration of a rent overcharge scheme. The motion, improperly brought under CPLR 906(1) and thus treated as one for summary judgment, was denied because tenants failed to provide all necessary documentary evidence, such as leases and underlying records for claimed improvements, to meet their prima facie burden. The court noted that while an attorney affirmation is permissible for admissible documents, personal knowledge is required for unrefutable facts. The court also clarified that post-2024 legislative amendments (L 2024, ch 95) eliminated the common law fraud standard and tenant affidavit requirement to establish a fraudulent scheme in overcharge cases where the default formula is not universally sought. The case was remitted without prejudice to tenants' ability to file a new motion.

Keywords

Rent Overcharge; CPLR 906[1] is Not Vehicle for Determination of Issues in Class Action – J-51 Tax Abatement – Tenants Invited to Move for Summary Judgment

Download

Takedown Policy

Share

COinS