| Bogatin v Windermere Owners LLC |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06265 [98 AD3d 896] |
| September 25, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Marc Bogatin, Respondent, v Windermere Owners LLC etal., Appellants. |
—[*1] Marc Bogatin, respondent pro se.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 8,2011, which denied defendants' pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimouslyaffirmed, with costs.
The court properly looked beyond the four-year period prior to the filing of the rentovercharge complaint (see CPLR 213-a; Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [AdministrativeCode of City of NY] § 26-516 [a] [2]) since, in opposition to defendants' motion to dismissthe complaint, plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that defendants had engaged in a fraudulentscheme to remove the subject apartment from rent regulation (see Matter of Grimm v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community RenewalOff. of Rent Admin., 15 NY3d 358 [2010]). Plaintiff's allegations that defendants falselyclaimed to have undertaken substantial improvements prior to his tenancy were supported by,among other things, plaintiff's affidavit and a contractor's estimate. At this stage of theproceeding, the court properly denied defendants' motion, affording plaintiff the opportunity toengage in discovery on the issue of the alleged fraudulent deregulation. Concur—Andrias,J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Richter, JJ.