Pechock v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal

• Decision Date: 17 September 1998
• Citation: 253 A.D.2d 655,677 N.Y.S.2d 554
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 7907 In re Application of Chester PECHOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, For a Judgment, etc., v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent-Respondent, and Julia Miller, et al., Intervenors-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 554

677 N.Y.S.2d 554

253 A.D.2d 655, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 7907

In re Application of Chester PECHOCK, Petitioner-Appellant,

For a Judgment, etc., v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL,

Respondent-Respondent,

and

Julia Miller, et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

Sept. 17, 1998.

Jeffrey R. Metz, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Martin B. Schneider, for Respondent-Respondent.

Anne Jaffe, for Intervenors-Respondents.

Before ELLERIN, J.P., TOM, MAZZARELLI and SAXE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered April 25, 1997, which denied petitioner landlord's application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent DHCR'S determination of a rent overcharge and imposing treble damages, and dismissed the petition, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the petition to the extent of precluding DHCR's consideration of the subject apartment's rental history prior to September 11, 1986, and recalculating the overcharge to refund $8,883.00 to Julia Miller, individually, $4,883.64 to Boris McGiver individually; $4,794.36 to Gene Wheeler individually; $13,415.25 to the tenants jointly; totaling $31,976.25 due the tenants from the landlord, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as DHCR's overcharge calculation refers to the subject apartment's rent in 1985, more than four years prior to the filing of the tenant's overcharge complaint on September 11, 1990, a recalculation of the refund is necessitated by the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997, which amended Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516(a) to specifically "preclude examination of the rental history of the housing accommodation prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of the complaint" in "any action or proceeding pending in any court" at the time of its enactment on June 19, 1997, including the instant appeal, which was pending in court at the time the statute became effective (see, Zafra v. Pilkes, 245 A.D.2d 218, 666 N.Y.S.2d 633).

Petitioner's other arguments are without merit. DHCR's denial of a rent increase for alleged vacancy improvements was rationally based on the lack of detail in the bills and invoices purporting to support the increase (see, 985 Fifth Ave. v. State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 171 A.D.2d 572, 567 N.Y.S.2d 657, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 861, 576 N.Y.S.2d 219, 582 N.E.2d 602). DHCR's finding that petitioner overcharged the tenants by...