You are here: / / Administrative Review of a Rent Overcharge Petition Should Have Been Granted;...
, ,

Administrative Review of a Rent Overcharge Petition Should Have Been Granted; Allegations of Fraud Overcame Four-Year Statute of Limitations

The First Department, over a dissent, reversed Supreme Court’s dismissal of an Article 78 petition for administrative review of the denial of petitioner’s rent overcharge complaint by the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).  Petitioner’s rent was increased from $572 to $1750 a month.  To justify that adjustment, the landlord was required to have spent $39,000 improving the apartment.  Petitioner submitted evidence that supported her position the landlord spent very little on the improvements.  The landlord, however, produced no evidence of what was actually spent and, therefore, there was no basis in the record for the DHCR’s determination that the $1750 rental amount was justified.  The First Department noted that the four-year statute of limitations did not apply because there was substantial evidence of fraud:

Under the standard set forth in Matter of Grimm v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin. (15 NY3d 358 [2010]), petitioner made a sufficient showing of fraud to require DHCR to investigate the legality of the base date rent … . Although the “look-back” for an apartment’s rental history is ordinarily limited to the four-year period preceding the date that the petitioner files the complaint …, where fraud is alleged and there is “substantial indicia of fraud on the record,” DHCR is obliged to investigate whether the base date rate was legal and “act[s] arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to meet that obligation”… .

Thus, we find that DHCR’s disparate treatment of the parties’ claims was arbitrary. While the agency made no attempt to evaluate the legitimacy of petitioner’s claims despite their consistency and degree of detail, DHCR credited the owner’s implicit claim that it spent $39,000 to renovate the apartment simply because “it would not be difficult for anyone with any experience in this industry to believe it could have taken $39,000 … to update the appearance and equipment in an apartment which had not changed hands for thirty-two years.” This justification for the agency’s determination is irrational. Finding that the owner “could have” spent $39,000 …, where the owner never submitted any evidence controverting petitioner’s claims is not equivalent to finding that the owner actually made improvements costing that much. Accordingly, this matter should be remanded to DHCR to give the parties the opportunity to present evidence in connection with the legality of the base rate rent. Matter of Boyd v NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal…, 2013 NY Slip Op 06966, 1st Dept 10-29-13

 

 

You might also like
EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN NASSAU COUNTY WHERE THE CORPORATION DID HAVE AN OFFICE, VENUE WAS APPROPRIATELY PLACED IN NEW YORK COUNTY BASED ON DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (FIRST DEPT).
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT.
ALTHOUGH THE NYC ADMININSTRATIVE CODE MAKES TENANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ICE AND SNOW FROM SIDEWALKS, IT DOES NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO DO SO; THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ALSO MAKES PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL; THE LEASE SPECIFICALLY STATED DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING SNOW AND ICE FROM THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
1/2 Inch Variation in Stair-Step Height (In Violation of Fire Safety Code) Established Negligence
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN UNGUARDED STAIRWAY OPENING AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW THAT THE PRE-DEPOSITION SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT). ​
INSTALLING WINDOW SHADES IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND WAS NOT PART OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEG OF A CLOTHING RACK IN A STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Questioning of Witnesses by Trial Judge Did Not Deprive Defendant of a Fair Trial

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Question of Fact Re: Implied Easement for Pipeline to Pond In Court Stipulation Was Valid Postnuptial Agreement; DRL 236(B)(3) Did Not...