One Three Eight Seven Assoc. v. COMMISSIONER OF DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL OF OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION

• Decision Date: 24 February 2000
• Citation: 269 A.D.2d 296,703 N.Y.S.2d 44
• Parties: ONE THREE EIGHT SEVEN ASSOC., Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>COMMISSIONER OF DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL OF OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION, Respondent, et al., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

269 A.D.2d 296

703 N.Y.S.2d 44

ONE THREE EIGHT SEVEN ASSOC., Appellant,

v.COMMISSIONER OF DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL OF OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

Decided February 24, 2000.

Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Although petitioner purchased the subject premises in 1991, only a few months before the District Rent Administrator fixed the fair market rent and directed petitioner and two prior landlords to refund to the tenant the excess rent that the tenant paid to each since moving into the apartment in 1985, it was not arbitrary and capricious for DHCR, on petitioner's petition for administrative review(PAR) decided in 1998, to direct petitioner to refund the excess rent collected by the prior landlords as well as by itself.Such direction is consistent with respondent's policy, in force since 1993, of entitling a tenant to collect rents ordered refunded by reason of an overcharge determination entirely from the current landlord (see, Matter of Greenberg Real Estate v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal,258 AD2d 313, 314).Nor does petitioner, who should have been escrowing any rent it was collecting over and above the fair market rent as determined by the District Rent Administrator, show prejudice or hardship as a result of the delay in the decision on its PAR.Concerning the rental history reviewed by DHCR, we note that the tenant was never served...