Cintron v. Calogero

• Decision Date: 19 October 2010
• Parties: In the Matter of Oscar CINTRON, Appellant, v. Judith A. CALOGERO, as Commissioner of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal of the State of New York, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

912 N.Y.S.2d 498
15 N.Y.3d 347
938 N.E.2d 931

In the Matter of Oscar CINTRON, Appellant,
v.
Judith A. CALOGERO, as Commissioner of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal of the State of New York, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 19, 2010.

912 N.Y.S.2d 499

BAS Legal Advocacy Program, Inc., Bronx (Randolph Petsche of counsel), for appellant.

Gary R. Connor, General Counsel, New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, New York City (Martin B. Schneider of counsel), for respondent.

South Brooklyn Legal Services, Brooklyn (John C. Gray, Edward Josephson and Pavita Krishnaswamy of counsel) and Queens Legal Services, Jamaica (Heejung Kook of counsel), for Pratt Area Community Council and others, amici curiae.

Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn (Steven Banks, Patrick J. Langhenry, Stephen Myers and Jamila Wideman of counsel), for Met Council, Inc., amicus curiae.

15 N.Y.3d 351

938 N.E.2d 932

OPINION OF THE COURT

CIPARICK, J.

On this appeal, we are asked to interpret the Rent Stabilization Law to ascertain the consequences on a current rent overcharge claim of two rent reduction orders issued prior to, but in effect during, the four-year period preceding the filing of an overcharge claim. We conclude that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) should, in calculating any rent overcharge, honor rent reduction orders that, while issued prior to the four-year limitations period, remained in effect during that period.

I.

In 1986, petitioner Oscar Cintron became a tenant of 2975 Decatur Avenue, apartment 5C, in the Bronx, at an initial stabilized rent of $348.91 per month. The following year, petitioner filed a complaint with DHCR against the building's then owner, alleging a decrease in services related to, among other things, the apartment's refrigerator, door lock and fire escape window. As a result of the complaint, DHCR issued an order reducing petitioner's rent "by the percentage of the most recent guidelines adjustment for the tenant's lease which commenced before the effective date of th[e] rent reduction [order]," and providing that the owner could not collect any rent

15 N.Y.3d 352

increase until a rent restoration order was issued. The rent reduction order did not set a particular level of rent. According to petitioner, the 1987 rent reduction order should have resulted in a reduction of his rent to $326.23 per month.

In 1989, petitioner filed another complaint with DHCR, alleging a roach infestation of the apartment's stove. DHCR issued another rent reduction order. Despite the 1987 and 1989 rent reduction orders, however, the owner failed to make any repairs and continued to charge petitioner the unreduced rent.

In 1991, when the current owner purchased the building, petitioner allegedly advised him of the rent reduction orders. Although the current owner apparently also failed to make any repairs, petitioner continued to pay the unreduced rent and entered into a series of leases requiring him to pay greater rents.

On December 11, 2003, petitioner filed a complaint alleging that the rent of $579.99

938 N.E.2d 933, 912 N.Y.S.2d 500

charged in the lease then in effect constituted an overcharge based on the current and prior owners' failure to comply with the 1987 and 1989 rent reduction orders. A DHCR Rent Administrator determined that the base date to be used was the date four years prior to the filing of the overcharge complaint-December 11, 1999-and established that the legal regulated rent on the base date was $508.99, which was the rent charged by the current owner and paid by petitioner on that date. Although taking notice of the 1987 and 1989 rent reduction orders, the Rent Administrator in establishing the legal stabilized rent calculated the overcharge using the base date of December 11, 1999. The Rent Administrator awarded petitioner a rent refund of $1,008.77, which included interest but did not include treble damages, and prospectively froze the rent at the base date level from December 11, 1999 until February 1, 2004. Effective February 1, 2004, the Rent Administrator removed the 1987 and 1989 rent reduction orders and restored the rent to the full amount of $579.99, which included rent increases.

Petitioner sought administrative review of the Rent Administrator's order. DHCR granted the petition for administrative review to the extent of modifying the order by (1) reversing the portion of the order that denied treble damages and (2) awarding treble damages beginning two years prior to the filing of the overcharge complaint. DHCR denied the remainder of petitioner's challenges, concluding that the Rent Administrator properly limited recovery to the four years preceding the overcharge

15 N.Y.3d 353

complaint and correctly used the base date rent-$508.99 as of December 11, 1999-rather than the rent established by the 1987 and 1989 rent reduction orders in calculating the overcharge.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul DHCR's order. Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, concluding that DHCR's determination was not arbitrary or capricious and had a rational basis.

On petitioner's appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding:

"The order, finding the base rent date to be December 11, 1999 (four years prior to the filing of the overcharge complaint), establishing the legal base rent as the amount paid on that date, freezing that rent until February 1, 2004, during which time rent reduction orders were extant, and directing the owner to refund overcharges collected from the base rent date inclusive of treble damages, was not arbitrary and capricious, and had a rational basis" ( Matter of Cintron v. Calogero, 59 A.D.3d 345, 346, 874 N.Y.S.2d 76 [1st Dept.2009] [citations omitted] ).¹

Petitioner appealed to this Court by permission of the Appellate Division, which certified...