No Triple Damages Where Overcharge Due to Missing Registration

Tenant complained of a rent overcharge. Tenant claimed he'd rented the apartment from primary tenant, who was married to landlord and a co-owner of the building. Tenant argued that the sublease arrangement was an attempt to circumvent the rent stabilization laws. Tenant also claimed that he'd never gotten the initial registration (RR-1) form, but that the RR-1 had been sent to primary tenant, who wouldn't challenge it. Landlord argued that subtenant hadn't been overcharged because landlord had only charged guideline increases since 1979. The DRA found overcharges of about $105,300, based on landlord's failure to properly register the apartment. The DRA also assessed triple damages based on landlord's deceptive practice of sending the RR-1 to an illusory primary tenant. Landlord appealed, arguing that the triple damages were improper because the overcharge finding was based only on landlord's failure to serve tenant with the RR-1 form. The DHCR agreed with landlord, and eliminated the triple damages, cutting the overcharge to about $61,700. The Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1993 provides that the DHCR can't impose triple damages against a landlord for overcharges and solely as a result of landlord's failure to register its building. In this case, despite landlord's deceptive practices, the overcharge was due entirely to a missing registration.

Jagoda: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. HK 410097-RO (12/23/94) [4-page document]