Even with Proof Predating Base Date, DHCR Finds Overcharge

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of a rent overcharge. The DRA ruled for tenant and ordered landlord to refund $6,300, including interest and excess security. Landlord and tenant both appealed. The DHCR denied both PARs, and both parties filed Article 78 petitions in court. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for further consideration.

The DHCR then ruled for tenant and against landlord, finding that the overcharge was willful. Landlord appealed again, and the appeals court ruled that the four-year time limit on overcharge complaints didn’t bar landlord from introducing proof regarding matters before the four-year mark to show that the overcharge wasn’t willful.

After reconsideration, including a review of proof predating the base date, the DHCR again ruled for tenant and against landlord. Landlord led the prior elderly tenant to believe that he had no right to occupy the apartment, and used former tenant’s absence to make improvements through a contractor that had a relationship with landlord. Landlord also didn’t do some of the claimed work. So the DHCR correctly disallowed 1/40^th improvement costs claimed by landlord. Landlord also filed false registrations in 2001 and 2002, listing rents that were never charged or contained in any lease. Landlord was ordered to refund $16,000 to tenant.

H.O. Realty Corporation/Haggiagi: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. WK410006RP (10/7/09) [5-pg. doc.]