From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Appln. of Lyndonville v. Div. of HSG

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 21, 2002
291 A.D.2d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Summary

In Lyndonville Properties Mgmt., Inc. v. DHCR (291 AD2d 311, 312 [1st Dept 2002]), the court held that the DHCR acted rationally to fix the base rent for an apartment in the amount stated in the first reviewable registration statements rather than in the unexplained amount that the landlord actually charged and collected.

Summary of this case from Curry v. Battistotti

Opinion

292

February 21, 2002.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered on or about January 23, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner landlord's application to annul respondent DHCR's determination of a rent overcharge upon a finding fixing the subject apartment's base rent, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

PATRICK K. MUNSON, for petitioner-appellant.

MARTIN B. SCHNEIDER, for respondent-respondent.

DAVID E. FRAZER, for respondents-intervenors.

Before: Williams, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin, JJ.


Petitioner landlord seeks approval of its collection of an initial monthly rent of $2410 notwithstanding that it filed registration statements stating the rent to be $1488.95, failed to produce a rent history for the subject apartment, and for more than a decade did not offer the tenants a lease. Because the tenants took occupancy on August 1, 1984, and filed their overcharge proceeding on August 18, 1988, petitioner argues that there can be no consideration of rent history prior to August 18, 1984 (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 26-516[a][2]), and that the base rent must therefore be the $2410 that was undisputedly charged and paid on that date. DHCR determined that petitioner waived any right to the $2410 actually paid by filing registrations statements in 1985 and 1986 falsely stating the rent as $1488.95 and listing a lease that commenced on August 1, 1984 using fictitious names for the tenants. Under the circumstances, it was not irrational for DHCR to fix the base rent in the amount stated in the first reviewable registration statements rather than the unexplained amount actually charged and collected (see, Matter of Salvati v. Eimicke, 72 N.Y.2d 784, 791). To do otherwise would be to render largely meaningless a registration system that requires landlords to substantiate the lawfulness of their rents. We would add that inasmuch as it appears that DHCR fixed a base rent date of August 18, 1984, and the registration statements on which it relied were filed in 1985 and 1986, we perceive no issue under Administrative Code § 26-516(a)(2) (see, Crimmins v. Handler Co., 249 A.D.2d 89, 91).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

In re Appln. of Lyndonville v. Div. of HSG

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 21, 2002
291 A.D.2d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

In Lyndonville Properties Mgmt., Inc. v. DHCR (291 AD2d 311, 312 [1st Dept 2002]), the court held that the DHCR acted rationally to fix the base rent for an apartment in the amount stated in the first reviewable registration statements rather than in the unexplained amount that the landlord actually charged and collected.

Summary of this case from Curry v. Battistotti
Case details for

In re Appln. of Lyndonville v. Div. of HSG

Case Details

Full title:IN RE APPLICATION OF LYNDONVILLE PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 21, 2002

Citations

291 A.D.2d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
737 N.Y.S.2d 617

Citing Cases

AEJ 534 E. 88TH LLC v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

Appellate case law favors the DHCR's position. In Matter of Lyndonville Props. Mgt. v Division of Hous. &…

In Matter of Cintron

( Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., L.P, 13 NY3d 270; Matter of KSLM-Columbus Apts., Inc. v New York State…