Mon-Rose Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mon-Rose Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

255 A.D.2d 154, 679 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11873

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 12, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 154 (Mon-Rose Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mon-Rose Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 255 A.D.2d 154, 679 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about March 5, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination of a rent overcharge and award of treble damages, and dismissed the petition, unanimously modified, on the law, the petition granted to the extent of remanding to the respondent for clarification of the correct rent for the subject apartment and a recalculation of the overcharge award, including treble damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The Commissioner and the IAS Court correctly noted that the agency’s long delay in notifying petitioner of the overcharge complaint had no practical impact since even had notice been timely sent, petitioner concededly still would have been unable to submit the required lease covering April 1980 (see, Matter of DiMaggio v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 248 AD2d 533). Moreover, the agency properly found an overcharge to exist, since other 5-room apartments in the building had lower rentals. Further, petitioner failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating an absence of willfulness with the mere assertion that it had adopted the rent set by the prior landlord. To that extent the order is affirmed.

Nevertheless, as the Commissioner acknowledged, the Rent Administrator’s determination of the proper rent was founded upon an error made by the agency, not by petitioner, as to the size of the subject apartment. Given the importance of setting a correct rent, both for determining the extent of the overcharge and for purposes of future rent calculations, the error is not eliminated by the bare assertion that it was offset by the agency’s failure to “freeze the rent” for the period covered by the Rent Administrator’s order. Accordingly, we remand for a clarification of the correct rent for the subject apartment and a [155]*155recalculation of the overcharge award. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about March 5, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination of a rent overcharge and award of treble damages, and dismissed the petition, unanimously modified, on the law, the petition granted to the extent of remanding to the respondent for clarification of the correct rent for the subject apartment and a recalculation of the overcharge award, including treble damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The Commissioner and the IAS Court correctly noted that the agency’s long delay in notifying petitioner of the overcharge complaint had no practical impact since even had notice been timely sent, petitioner concededly still would have been unable to submit the required lease covering April 1980 (see, Matter of DiMaggio v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 248 AD2d 533). Moreover, the agency properly found an overcharge to exist, since other 5-room apartments in the building had lower rentals. Further, petitioner failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating an absence of willfulness with the mere assertion that it had adopted the rent set by the prior landlord. To that extent the order is affirmed.

Nevertheless, as the Commissioner acknowledged, the Rent Administrator’s determination of the proper rent was founded upon an error made by the agency, not by petitioner, as to the size of the subject apartment. Given the importance of setting a correct rent, both for determining the extent of the overcharge and for purposes of future rent calculations, the error is not eliminated by the bare assertion that it was offset by the agency’s failure to “freeze the rent” for the period covered by the Rent Administrator’s order. Accordingly, we remand for a clarification of the correct rent for the subject apartment and a [155]*155recalculation of the overcharge award. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 154, 679 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mon-rose-realty-corp-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack