No Indication of Fraud Warranting Older Rent History Review

Tenant complained of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled against tenant, finding that the apartment had been deregulated and wasn't subject to rent stabilization. Tenant appealed and argued that there was no prior DHCR order confirming the deregulated status of the apartment, and that the vacancy rent of $2,000 per month that he paid was based on a fraudulent increase over the prior tenant's rent. The DHCR ruled against tenant. The base date rent charged four years before tenant's complaint was filed was $2,000 per month. Landlord submitted proof of this in the form of an executed lease. A DHCR order wasn't required to deregulate the apartment. As to tenant's fraud claim, a rent increase that was greater than the legal increase and that occurred prior to the base date was insufficient by itself to warrant an inquiry for fraud. Tenant could have filed her overcharge claim earlier than she did. The discrepancy between an earlier offer of a rent-stabilized renewal lease and the later registration of the apartment as exempt also didn't rise to the level of fraud that would warrant a review of records pre-dating the four-year review period.

Bandera: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. CN210017RT (6/6/14) [3-pg. doc.]