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 |
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dugan v. London Terrace Gardens, L.P.
...of Hous. & Community Renewal , 4 A.D.3d 122, 771 N.Y.S.2d 341 [1st Dept. 2004] ; Matter of Pechock v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 253 A.D.2d 655, 677 N.Y.S.2d 554 [1st Dept. 1998] ; Zafra v. Pilkes , 245 A.D.2d 218, 666 N.Y.S.2d 633 [1st Dept. 1997] ). We reject defen......
-
165 William Street, LLC v. Baumane, 2008 NY Slip Op 32237(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/5/2008)
...make) decisions about illusory tenancies in connection with complaints filed with the agency. Pechock v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal, 253 A.D.2d 655 (1st Dept 1998); Grimm v. State of New York Div. of Housing and Community Renewal, 4 A.D.3d 295 (1st Dept Although it......
-
Argo Corp. v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal
...presented by petitioner to the Rent Administrator justified the challenged determination (see, Pechock v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, --- A.D.2d ----, 677 N.Y.S.2d 554). Petitioner's attempt to cure those deficiencies upon administrative review of the Rent Administrato......
-
Gourin v. 72A Realty Assoc.
...v. Bridgestone Assoc. LLC, 167 A.D.3d 498, 499, 90 N.Y.S.3d 159 [1st Dept. 2018]; Matter of Pechock v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 253 A.D.2d 655, 655, 677 N.Y.S.2d 554 [1st Dept. 1998]). The resulting allowable rent increases applicable to the tenant who moved into th......