Crumiller defeated a motion for summary judgment on a rent overcharge case. The Court allowed the tenants’ claims to go forward even though the tenants had moved into the apartment 20 years before asserting their claims.
Susan represented the tenant at trial in this non-primary residence case. Susan presented thorough evidence to successfully persuade the court that the tenant’s absence from the apartment was “temporary and excusable” on the basis that he was dealing with family matters. Susan successfully defended an appeal by the landlord and the appellate court agreed with Susan’s winning theory, securing a clearer path to victory for tenants who might otherwise be forced to choose between keeping their apartment and taking care of their families. Both the Appellate Term and the Appellate Division affirmed the decision.
In this case, the landlord sued a long-time rent stabilized tenant using concocted nuisance claims. After the trial court dismissed the case for insufficient evidence, Susan wrote the winning brief on appeal convincing the appellate court to uphold the trial court’s finding.
Susan intervened on behalf of the tenant in this appeal by the owner of a building who tried to claim a rent increase based upon a purported $13,750 paint job – “paid in cash”. The court agreed with Susan’s analysis and disallowed the increase.
As part of a two-person team, Susan successfully persuaded the Court of Appeals to reject the landlord’s argument that her client’s rent overcharge claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Instead, the Court permitted examination of the entire rental history for the apartment based on the “unrefuted proof of fraud in the record” Susan submitted.
The court granted Susan’s motion for summary judgment on her client’s rent overcharge case based upon extensive proof Susan submitted, including a pattern of wrongdoing by the landlord’s parent company. After this decision, the landlord reduced the rent to $750 per month (from nearly $2,000), completed extensive repairs in the apartment, and paid a lump sum in a confidential amount. The decision is also referenced in this article.