Grimm Case Sows More Confusion

, New York Law Journal


In their Rent Regulation column, Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel of Rosenberg & Estis, first review 'Grimm v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal,' where the Court of Appeals held that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal or a court can ignore the four-year look-back period for rent overcharge claims where the tenant raises a "colorable" claim of fraud. They then discuss 'Boyd v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal,' where the court held that the tenant had raised a colorable claim of fraud, which DHCR had failed to properly investigate.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202636715920

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.