Matter of 41st W. 72nd LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of 41st W. 72nd LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal 2004 NY Slip Op 30355(U) July 6, 2004 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 114392/03 Judge: Herman Cahn Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY 49 PART Jusilce 0 1 3 4392/2O83 INDEX NO. 41 WEST 72ND LLC. I I vs N.Y.S.D.I-T.C.R. MOTION SEQ. NO. SEQ I MOTION CAL. NO. ARTICLE 78 were read on this motion tolfor The followlng papers, numbered 1 t o PAPERS NUMBERED - - - ___. . Notice of Motion/ Order t o Show Cause Answering Affidavits - --. - Affidavit8 - Exhibits ... - -. - Exhlbits Replying Affidavits Cross-Motion: a Yes 0 No I .- Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motlon Check one: ' # J. s. c. FINAL DISPOSITION b NON-FINAL DISPOSITION . __ [* 2] I 1)EC.:I S I 0N -again st N E W Y O R K S'l'hTE DJVTSJON O F HOTJSING AND COMMUNITY Rb;NEWAI,, Respondcri t. l'ctitioiicr bi-ings this Article 78 procccding to challeiigc an oi-dcr of. the I-cspondcnt New Yorlc State 13ivisioii of ITousing the Coiiimunity Renewal (hercafler, DHCR) dated July 3, 2003. Pctilioncr (J,andlordj is the owiier of'aii ;ipnrtmeIit 1~i.1IId~iig Wcsl 72"" Sl.rccl, at 41 i 11 Izg ; Ii a1tan . 1-11-1 R 's ordc r- d en i cd l h 1~ dl o rd ' s P et i ti o I I for Ad miii i s lr at.iv c I<cv i cw m C' an wlii cli sougli t to ovcrtum a fiiicli rig 0.l' tlie Local Kcnt hdrn i nisl.l-ator(I-lcreal'tcr,achi i nistratoi-) I Afhi-mitlvc Lkf'cnse dated February 6, 200 I , tlic tenant first assertcd his claii.Ii of a I-ciil I I ovcrcharge. On August 3 1 , 2001 , LIXICR received the t.eliaril's c7vei-clxuge c~omplaiiil, signcd mid daled .August 22, 2001, repeating the allcgatioris orovei-chai-gelir-sl 1-aiscd i n the tciiani's a Ffi 111.1 i vt' dcfei.isc to tli e 11~311 at -paym cnt procccCd i ng . D ui-i rig I h c: pcndc~ic o F t 1 t: y 1 c) v erch tli-gc pro cced i iig, t11 c 1aidl ord rcq 11 cd est tli at nHCR t h c n on -13 ayiicIit pi-o c ced i I i 2 i i i tli c Ho LI s i i i s [* 3] C oui-t be discontinued, to wliicli tenant coiiscntcd as dciiionsli-ated by a letter rcceived by 1-cspo11~1~1itMay 7, 2003 (RcttlI11: D-1, EX."^"). 011 111 ilic irdniinisli-ative proceeding b e h r c llic respondcnt submitted to the rlisti-icl I<ciil li-om wliicl, t l Slahrtc ol 1,iiiiitations was tollcc l. ~ On A L I ~ L3I1, ~ S 1097, lhc apartnierit w;is v a c a i t l ursuaiit lo RSC Scction 2520. I ( a ) (3) (iii), llic first rent charged to tht: coIliplai11ililt tenant within the l o u r years must bc cslablislicd ;IS Ihc IeSuI regtilaled rent. lnasiiiucli as tlw legal regulated rerat was Lxcd at $2050.00 1x1 iiiontli as coiicltrtlcd by the admmisli-ator by order dalcd Api-il 26, 2002 (Petition, Ex. TI ) - --- the w a s dcnicd. (:hi June 4, 2002. Ilic tellant filed ; t ctilioii i for Admiiiislralive Review (hei-cafiei-,PAR), whcrciii the lciiaiil lirst claimed that the overcharge issue had been set l orth in h i s cowitcrclniiii tlie PAR by order dated August 30, 2002, and rcinstatcd tlic tenant s ovcrc1i:trge cc:)iiipla.int.1 I C used a rent basc dalc of Feli~-uai-y 1.997 (Petition, Ex. E ). On this dalc, the ap;ir(111ciil L K 6, W April 3, 2003, the xlministrator computed the rcnt overchargc, based on the !$1,4C)0.00 pci~ iiiontli, actually paid by thc tenant, pursuant to a rchalc agi-cement with tlie landloi-(1, to 2 [* 4] which tlic $2,050 1-iionthlyrent sct forth in tlic lease was sihject. T he legal regulated rent was computed based upon tlic rent in e l h t for the tenant occupying the apat-lmclit 011 Febi-u:iry 0, 1 W 7 in the s~.iiii ofS047.1 8, inci-eascs adding 1\17 lo plus iricxnients lxised on relit giiidclines, vacxicy a n d longcvily a total Icgal regulated rent of$903.47. Thc ovcrc,liai-gc oi-cicrcd to 1,c repaid is tlic siiim of (lie monthly ovcrchargcs based 011 $903.47, plus iiitei-est, less landloi-(1 s 1-ctiind wliich ~ x ~ i i ; i h lis lxiscd on tlic tenant s Ltilurc lo pay any rent liiv ;I period 01. timc. y The final figurc is $14,921 .14. L,andlo~-d subscquently f i l d a PAR contesting lJic order of April 3, 2003, on May 6, 2003 (Rcturn: TI- I , fix. A ). I bcadnijnistralor .sitor s ordcr of April 3, 2003 wns allirlncd, aiid the landlord s I AR deiiicd, pursii;int to ( . h ~ i issioiicr, iii ; July i 3, 2003 oi-der and opinion of tlic Deputy wli icli a Ui rniaiicc is tlic subjjcct of tlic iristaiit petit ion. J m d l o i - d seeks rcliel lxised oii tlie asserted violation or KSL Scctioii 2526.1 (a) ( 2 ) ( i i ) , which sets Ibrth a statute of liniitalioiis of h i r y e m on past rent ovcrchiii-gcs. I,anclloi-cl maintains that tlic tenant may 1101 bc nfforcicd relief prior- ko August 3 1, I 997, Ikur yeiri-s prior to tlic date ol the coiiimeiiccnieiit of thc IIHCR. overcharge complaint. I hcrcspondcnl, however, iioling tlial the landlord attached lenniit complainl, asserts that .- it copy o[ his Fdmiat-y 2001 Horising Voiirt 1;uitlloi-d- wilh i-ci-kreiiw to twant s al lirriiativc defciisc ofi-ciit over-cliarge sci-ved on the landlord a1 that time - tlie latter had sdiicicrit notice u I the uvci.chai-gc claiin. I hei-cforc,the t-cspondcnt concludes tolled by I~JC 1andlc)rd s 1-cccipt ol tlie tliat the statule of limitations on rent ovel-cli;u-gcs cui.intei-claimnotice in Fclmiai-y 200 I . RSL, $ 2526.1 (a)(2) qLiitc clearly statcs that claims milst bc filed within lioiir ycars ofttic claimed overcharge. F~irlhcr, siibdivisioii (ii) ol the said section clirccls lhat h c rcnhl hislory o[- [* 5] p~ir-siiaiil this scctioii . . . shall not bc examined." Tlic section is cleai- tlial IIIC statule o f to dctcriniiiatioii t o exlciid tlic period of limilai~oii back 10 lour years fi-oiii the dale o f noticc to tlic I~uidloid,1.c. thc cou~itcr-claim, iiic,orrect. 'I'liel-cforc, the matter is remalicled to the i-csponclcnt, is io reconsider bascd on the I'orcgoing. Accordingly, the pclitioii is granted to the extent that tlic iiiattcr is I-ciiiaiidcd to tlic i.espoiident, to reconsicicr based 011 tlic foreSoiiig. 4 ' The clcrlc is di rectcd to entcr judgment accordingly. 4 .-*4 (1: 3,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.