Landlord Entitled to Longevity Increase Back to 1965

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled for tenant, and ordered landlord to refund over $6,000, including triple damages. Landlord appealed, and the DHCR denied landlord's PAR. Landlord then filed an Article 78 court appeal. Landlord claimed that there was no overcharge and that it was entitled to both a vacancy increase and longevity increase from tenant because she was the second successor tenant to her grandparents' lease. The court ruled for landlord and sent the case back to the DHCR for reconsideration. There was no evidence that landlord collected a vacancy increase from tenant's parents in 1985 when they were the first successor tenants. The court found that it was "willful and capricious" for the DHCR to cover up the DRA's error with no justification. Landlord was entitled to a longevity increase calculated from 1965. 

Cambridge Leasing Property, LLC v. DHCR: Index No. 21454/2013, NYLJ No. 1202665682344 (Sup. Ct. Queens; 7/23/14; Raffaele, J)