Base-Date Vacancy Leases and Undisclosed Preferential Rents: Commentary on Matter of East Riv. Group, LLC v. DHCR

Base-Date Vacancy Leases and Undisclosed Preferential Rents: Commentary on Matter of East Riv. Group, LLC v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal

I. Introduction

The Appellate Division, Second Department’s decision in Matter of East River Group, LLC v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 2025 NY Slip Op 06861 (Dec. 10, 2025), sits squarely at the intersection of several core doctrines of New York rent regulation:

  • The pre–Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) four-year lookback rule for rent overcharge claims;
  • The concept of the “base date” and what materials DHCR may review in setting the legal regulated rent;
  • The definition and proper documentation of “preferential rent” under the Rent Stabilization Code; and
  • The presumption of willfulness that underpins treble damages for rent overcharges.

The case arises from an Article 78 challenge by a landlord (East River Group, LLC) to a DHCR determination finding a rent overcharge and awarding treble damages to a rent-stabilized tenant. The landlord argued, among other things, that:

  • DHCR improperly looked at a vacancy lease that had commenced prior to the four-year lookback period; and
  • The rent set in that vacancy lease was merely a “preferential rent,” allowing later substantial increases and negating any willfulness in the overcharge.

The Second Department rejected those arguments and affirmed DHCR’s determination, offering important clarification on:

  1. When a vacancy lease that began before the lookback period may be used to determine the base-date rent, without a showing of fraud; and
  2. How the failure to properly document a preferential rent in the vacancy lease fixes the “legal regulated rent” for all future renewals, and how an owner’s later attempt to retroactively recast that rent as “preferential” supports a finding of willful overcharge and treble damages.

This commentary analyzes the decision’s factual background, the court’s reasoning, the interplay with prior precedents, and the implications for future overcharge litigation and landlord-tenant practice under rent stabilization.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

A. The Overcharge Complaint and DHCR Proceedings

A tenant in a rent-stabilized apartment owned by East River Group, LLC filed a rent overcharge complaint with DHCR on February 27, 2017. At that time, prior to the HSTPA’s 2019 amendments, rent overcharge claims were governed by a four-year statute of limitations embodied in the then-effective version of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) and Code (RSC).

In an August 12, 2022 order, a DHCR Rent Administrator:

  • Identified the “base date” of the overcharge proceeding as February 27, 2013 (four years prior to the filing of the complaint);
  • Determined that the tenant had been overcharged during the relevant period; and
  • Imposed treble damages on the landlord.

The Rent Administrator’s analysis turned on a vacancy lease dated June 5, 2012 that was in effect on the base date and set the rent at $1,200. That lease:

  • Listed only one rent figure, $1,200; and
  • Did not identify that $1,200 as a “preferential rent” or separately list a higher “legal regulated rent.”

The owner filed a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR). On March 10, 2023, a DHCR Deputy Commissioner denied the PAR and affirmed the Rent Administrator’s order, concluding that:

  • $1,200 was the legal regulated rent on the base date; and
  • The owner’s attempt in later renewal leases and registrations to re-characterize that amount as a “preferential rent” constituted a willful overcharge warranting treble damages.

B. The Article 78 Proceeding and Supreme Court Judgment

The owner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, Queens County, challenging DHCR’s determination. The petition asserted, in substance, that DHCR:

  • Misapplied the four-year lookback rule and the base-date concept;
  • Erroneously treated the $1,200 rent as the legal regulated rent rather than a preferential rent; and
  • Improperly imposed treble damages by finding a willful overcharge.

By judgment entered November 20, 2023, Supreme Court (Leverett, J.) in effect denied the Article 78 petition and dismissed the proceeding, upholding DHCR’s decision.

C. The Appeal to the Appellate Division

The landlord appealed. The Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court’s judgment, concluding that DHCR’s determination:

  • Had a rational basis in the record;
  • Was neither arbitrary nor capricious; and
  • Reflected a reasonable interpretation of the statutes and regulations that DHCR administers.

III. Summary of the Appellate Division’s Holding

The Second Department’s decision breaks down into four key holdings:

  1. Four-Year Lookback and Base Date: Because the overcharge complaint was filed on February 27, 2017, the pre-HSTPA four-year lookback rule applied. The Rent Administrator correctly identified the base date as February 27, 2013 and calculated the legal regulated rent by reference to the rent in effect on that date plus lawful increases.
  2. Use of a Pre-Lookback Vacancy Lease in Effect on the Base Date: The vacancy lease dated June 5, 2012—though it began more than four years before the complaint—was in effect on the base date. That lease was therefore properly reviewed and considered in determining the base-date legal regulated rent. Under these circumstances, the tenant was not required to prove that the landlord engaged in a fraudulent scheme in order for DHCR to rely on that lease.
  3. Failure to Disclose Preferential Rent Fixes the Legal Regulated Rent: Because the vacancy lease listed only a single rent of $1,200 and did not state that it was a preferential rent or set forth a separate higher legal regulated rent, DHCR properly treated $1,200 as the legal regulated rent. Renewal leases had to be based on that amount. The landlord’s later effort to characterize $1,200 as a preferential rent through renewal leases and registrations was rejected as contrary to the Rent Stabilization Code.
  4. Treble Damages and Willfulness: Once an overcharge is established, it is presumed willful, and the landlord bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the overcharge was not willful. The owner here failed to meet that burden. The landlord had acquired the property during the term of the vacancy lease that clearly set a single rent of $1,200 with no preferential designation, yet attempted to reclassify that rent as preferential in subsequent documents. DHCR’s conclusion that the overcharge was willful, and its imposition of treble damages, was rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

IV. Detailed Legal Analysis

A. Standard of Review in Article 78 Challenges to DHCR Determinations

The court begins by restating the familiar standard governing judicial review of administrative decisions in an Article 78 proceeding:

  • Review is limited to whether the determination:
    • Was made in violation of lawful procedure;
    • Was affected by an error of law; or
    • Was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.

The opinion cites:

  • Matter of Teore v State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 234 AD3d 860;
  • Matter of 88-05 171, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 230 AD3d 679; and
  • Matter of CHT Place, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 219 AD3d 486.

Borrowing language from these cases, the court reiterates that an action is arbitrary and capricious when taken “without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts.” As Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424 (2009), confirms, if an agency’s determination is supported by a rational basis, the courts must sustain it even if they might have reached a different result on their own.

The court further underscores that:

“An agency’s interpretation of the statutes and regulations that it administers is entitled to deference, and must be upheld if reasonable.”

This line of cases collectively cements a high level of deference to DHCR’s application of the RSL and RSC, particularly in technical questions such as base-date calculations and rent-setting mechanisms. It is against this deferential standard that East River Group’s challenges must be measured.

B. Temporal Framework: The Four-Year Lookback for Pre-HSTPA Overcharge Complaints

A central question in any overcharge proceeding is: over what period of time can the tenant seek relief, and what history may DHCR examine?

The tenant’s complaint was filed on February 27, 2017—before the HSTPA’s June 14, 2019 amendments, which radically expanded lookback and record-retention rules. The court therefore applies the pre-HSTPA law, relying on:

  • The Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, former Administrative Code § 26-516(a)(2); and
  • Matter of Fairley v State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 214 AD3d 800.

Under that regime:

  • Overcharge claims were governed by a four-year statute of limitations.
  • “No award of the amount of an overcharge could be based upon an overcharge having occurred more than four years before the complaint was filed.”
  • The “base date” is four years before the filing of the complaint—in this case, February 27, 2013.

The Rent Stabilization Code implemented this through 9 NYCRR § 2526.1(a)(3)(i), providing that the legal regulated rent is “deemed to be the rent charged on the base date, plus any subsequent lawful increases and adjustments.” To enforce the time limitation, the law directed focus to:

“the rent actually charged on the date four years prior to the filing of the overcharge complaint, without regard to the rental history prior to that date” (emphasis added).

The Court of Appeals in Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 NY3d 332 (2020), reaffirmed this framework and held that the HSTPA’s attempt to retroactively expand lookback and damages rules could not constitutionally apply to pre-HSTPA claims.

In East Riv. Group, the court explicitly aligns itself with Regina and the pre-HSTPA regime:

  • Because the complaint was filed in 2017, the four-year lookback governs.
  • The base date is February 27, 2013.
  • DHCR’s task is to determine what the lawful rent was on that date and how it was lawfully increased thereafter.

C. The Base-Date Vacancy Lease: Use of a Pre-Lookback Lease Without a Fraud Showing

The landlord’s primary attack concerned DHCR’s reliance on a vacancy lease dated June 5, 2012, which commenced prior to February 27, 2013 but was still in effect on the base date.

Owners sometimes argue—by analogy to “fraud exception” cases—that DHCR may not look beyond the four-year period (including to leases signed before the base date) unless a tenant proves a fraudulent rent-inflation scheme. The Second Department squarely rejects that argument in this factual setting.

The court’s reasoning proceeds in two steps:

  1. The governing lease is the lease in effect on the base date.
    Because the complaint was filed February 27, 2017, the base date is February 27, 2013. On that date, the June 5, 2012 vacancy lease was in effect. DHCR was therefore entitled—indeed, required—to identify and examine that lease in order to determine the rent that was “actually charged” on the base date.
  2. No fraud showing is required to review the lease in effect on the base date.
    The court emphasizes that under these circumstances the tenant was not required to prove a fraudulent scheme. The vacancy lease, although it began prior to the four-year lookback window, is not “remote history” in the sense condemned by the statute; it is the very instrument that governed the rent payable on the base date.

To substantiate this approach, the opinion cites:

  • Matter of Regina Metro. Co., 35 NY3d at 348 (for basic base-date principles);
  • Gomes v Vermyck, LLC, 238 AD3d 26 (supporting application of the four-year rule and base-date framework post-Regina);
  • Matter of Cintron v Calogero, 15 NY3d 347, 356; and
  • Onate v Fernandez, 184 AD3d 725, 726–727.

In Cintron and Onate, the courts recognized DHCR’s ability to consider a lease that straddles the base date—i.e., one that may have commenced before the four-year period but is still operative on the base date—when identifying the legal regulated rent. Those cases distinguish between:

  • Using truly historical, pre-base-date rents to compute an overcharge award (generally impermissible absent fraud under pre-HSTPA law); and
  • Looking at the lease that governs the base date itself, even if it was executed earlier in time.

East Riv. Group reinforces that distinction and will be useful to tenants and DHCR whenever an owner claims that a vacancy lease cannot be examined merely because it commenced slightly more than four years before the complaint, even though it remains in effect on the base date.

D. Legal Regulated Rent vs. Preferential Rent: Effect of Failure to Disclose

The case’s most concrete doctrinal contribution involves preferential rent. The Rent Stabilization Code defines and regulates this concept in 9 NYCRR § 2521.2:

  • “Preferential rent” is defined as the rent charged and paid by the tenant that is less than the legal regulated rent.
  • The regulation requires that both:
    • The legal regulated rent; and
    • The preferential rent
    be set forth in the vacancy lease under which preferential rent is first charged.

The court quotes and relies on Matter of Rania Mesiskli, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 166 AD3d 625, which emphasized the requirement that “such legal regulated rent as well as preferential rent shall be set forth in the vacancy lease.”

In East Riv. Group, the undisputed facts were:

  • The June 5, 2012 vacancy lease contained only one rent figure: $1,200.
  • The lease:
    • Did not identify $1,200 as a preferential rent; and
    • Did not set forth any other higher amount as the legal regulated rent.

From these facts, the court draws a straightforward conclusion:

“[T]he Deputy Commissioner’s determination that $1,200 constituted the legal regulated rent and that the petitioner was required to base renewal leases offered to the tenant on that amount of rent was rational and not arbitrary and capricious.”

In other words:

  • If the vacancy lease lists only one rent, and that rent is charged and paid by the tenant,
  • And the lease does not label that rent as “preferential” or disclose a higher “legal regulated rent,”
  • Then the only plausible conclusion is that the listed rent is the legal regulated rent.

The landlord in this case attempted, after the fact, to characterize the $1,200 rent as merely a preferential rent by:

  • Offering renewal leases and/or filing registrations that treated $1,200 as a preferential rent and asserted a higher legal regulated rent.

The court holds that this post hoc reclassification cannot override the clear terms of the vacancy lease or the regulatory requirement that the preferential rent structure be disclosed at the outset. The $1,200 figure therefore:

  • Was the legal regulated rent on the base date; and
  • Served as the base for all subsequent lawful increases.

Any rent charged above that amount, plus lawful guideline or statutory increases, constituted an overcharge.

E. Treble Damages and the Presumption of Willfulness

Once an overcharge is established, the next question is whether treble damages apply. Under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-516(a) and 9 NYCRR § 2526.1(a)(1):

  • If DHCR finds that an owner has collected an overcharge above the authorized rent, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard,
  • The owner “shall be liable to the tenant for a penalty equal to three times the amount of such overcharge,”
  • Unless the owner proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the overcharge was not willful.

The court relies on Paulonis v 287 Assoc., L.P., 198 AD3d 664, and Matter of Obiora v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 77 AD3d 755, to restate the key rule:

“[A] rent overcharge is presumed willful, and warrants a treble damages award under Administrative Code § 26-516(a), unless the owner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the overcharge was not willful.”

Applying that standard, the Second Department finds that the landlord failed to rebut the presumption:

  • The owner acquired the property during the term of the June 5, 2012 vacancy lease.
  • That lease plainly:
    • Set the rent at $1,200; and
    • Did not identify that amount as preferential or list any higher legal regulated rent.
  • Under 9 NYCRR § 2521.2(b) and Rania Mesiskli, this meant that $1,200 was the legal regulated rent.
  • Nevertheless, the owner attempted to treat $1,200 as a preferential rent in subsequent lease renewals and registrations.

These facts supported DHCR’s conclusion that the overcharge was willful or, at minimum, that the owner had not shown it was non-willful. The court also cites Smoke v Windermere Owners, LLC, 173 AD3d 500, and Obiora, 77 AD3d 755, for similar holdings.

One important practical takeaway is that a purchaser of a rent-stabilized building cannot simply plead ignorance of the regulatory status or base rent. Where the lease and governing documents on acquisition are clear (or should have been clear upon due diligence) and the owner chooses to deviate from them, courts are unlikely to find a lack of willfulness.

F. Agency Deference: DHCR’s Interpretation of Its Own Regulations

Throughout, the court reiterates its deference to DHCR’s expertise in applying the RSL and RSC:

  • DHCR’s determination of the base date and base rent had a rational basis in the record.
  • Its reading of the preferential rent regulations (9 NYCRR § 2521.2) as requiring both rents to be set forth in the vacancy lease was reasonable and consistent with prior appellate case law.
  • Its application of the willfulness presumption and treble damages provisions was consistent with the Administrative Code and prior decisions.

This reinforces a familiar message: in the absence of a clear legal error, courts will not substitute their own judgment for that of DHCR in the fact-intensive task of reconstructing rent histories and applying technical regulatory rules.

G. Relationship to Key Precedents Cited in the Opinion

It is useful to situate East Riv. Group against the backdrop of the cases expressly cited by the court:

1. Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v DHCR, 35 NY3d 332

Regina is the foundational Court of Appeals decision on the temporal scope of overcharge claims, holding that:

  • The pre-HSTPA four-year lookback and base-date methodology apply to claims filed before June 14, 2019.
  • The HSTPA’s attempt to apply longer lookback and expanded damages retroactively was unconstitutional as applied to those cases.

By citing Regina and adhering to the four-year rule, the Second Department confirms that its approach in East Riv. Group fits comfortably within the Court of Appeals’ framework.

2. Matter of Fairley v DHCR, 214 AD3d 800

Fairley reaffirmed that:

  • Overcharge claims filed pre-HSTPA were subject to a four-year statute of limitations; and
  • The base date rent is the rent actually charged four years before the complaint, without regard to older rental history.

East Riv. Group uses Fairley to anchor its articulation of the base-date concept and to frame the temporal limits on DHCR’s examination of the rent history.

3. Gomes v Vermyck, LLC, 238 AD3d 26

While the opinion does not detail Gomes, the citation suggests that it:

  • Applies Regina and the four-year base date approach in a post-HSTPA environment; and
  • Deals with overcharge filings that straddle the HSTPA enactment date.

In East Riv. Group, the court relies on Gomes to support the proposition that the June 2012 vacancy lease, although predating the four-year window, was still relevant—and indeed central—because it was in effect on the February 2013 base date.

4. Matter of Cintron v Calogero, 15 NY3d 347, and Onate v Fernandez, 184 AD3d 725

These cases address DHCR’s authority to review leases that span the base date. They recognize that:

  • The fact that a lease commenced before the base date does not make it “off limits” for DHCR; and
  • The lease in effect on the base date can properly be examined to determine the rent actually charged on that date.

East Riv. Group leans on these cases to reject the landlord’s argument that the June 2012 vacancy lease could not be considered absent a showing of fraudulent rent manipulation.

5. Matter of Rania Mesiskli, LLC v DHCR, 166 AD3d 625

Rania Mesiskli is crucial to the preferential-rent analysis. It emphasizes that:

  • Both the legal regulated rent and the preferential rent must be set forth in the vacancy lease under which preferential rent is charged; and
  • Failure to do so results in the “only” stated rent being treated as the legal regulated rent.

In East Riv. Group, this precedent is applied almost mechanically: because the vacancy lease contained only one rent, that rent was the legal regulated rent, and the owner’s later attempt to redefine it as preferential was invalid.

6. Paulonis v 287 Assoc., L.P., 198 AD3d 664; Matter of Obiora v DHCR, 77 AD3d 755; Smoke v Windermere Owners, LLC, 173 AD3d 500

These decisions collectively establish and apply the following propositions:

  • A rent overcharge is presumed willful;
  • Treble damages are mandated unless the owner proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the overcharge was not willful; and
  • Owners face a substantial evidentiary burden when attempting to rebut that presumption, especially where documentary evidence contradicts their assertions.

East Riv. Group simply applies this line of authority to the facts at hand, concluding that the landlord’s conduct—acquiring the property with a clear vacancy lease and then seeking to treat the stated rent as preferential—did not rebut the willfulness presumption.

V. Complex Legal Concepts Explained in Plain Terms

For clarity, the following are key legal terms and concepts used in the opinion, translated into more accessible language:

1. CPLR Article 78 Proceeding

An Article 78 proceeding is a special type of lawsuit in New York used to challenge decisions of administrative agencies (like DHCR), public bodies, or officers. In this context, the landlord used Article 78 to argue that DHCR’s decision was legally or procedurally improper, or irrational.

2. “Arbitrary and Capricious” Standard

A decision is “arbitrary and capricious” if it is made:

  • Without a sound factual basis; or
  • Without a logical, reasoned explanation.

Courts will not overturn an agency’s decision merely because they might have reached a different outcome. They only intervene when the agency’s action is irrational, contrary to law, or taken without considering the relevant facts.

3. “Base Date” and “Four-Year Lookback”

In rent overcharge cases:

  • The complaint date is when the tenant files the overcharge claim.
  • The base date is four years before that complaint date (for pre-HSTPA claims).
  • The four-year lookback rule generally means:
    • The legal rent is presumed to be the rent charged on the base date; and
    • Overcharges occurring more than four years before the complaint cannot typically be recovered.

4. Legal Regulated Rent vs. Preferential Rent

  • Legal Regulated Rent: The maximum rent an owner is allowed to charge a rent-stabilized tenant under the law and DHCR’s rules.
  • Preferential Rent: A lower rent that the landlord voluntarily charges, even though the legal rent could be higher. This is often granted as an incentive or based on negotiations.

Under 9 NYCRR § 2521.2:

  • When a landlord charges a preferential rent, the vacancy lease must list:
    • The higher legal regulated rent; and
    • The lower preferential rent actually being charged.
  • If the lease lists only one rent and does not say it is “preferential,” that rent is treated as the legal regulated rent.

5. Treble Damages and Willfulness

“Treble damages” means the landlord must pay three times the amount of the overcharge. The law:

  • Presumes that an overcharge is willful—that is, intentional or at least not a mere honest mistake;
  • Places the burden on the landlord to prove that any overcharge was not willful (for example, due to a good-faith, reasonable reliance on official guidance); and
  • Requires proof by a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning more likely than not.

If the landlord fails to meet this burden, treble damages must be imposed.

VI. Practical and Doctrinal Implications

A. For DHCR and the Courts

The decision confirms and slightly sharpens several rules that DHCR and courts can apply consistently:

  • Base-Date Lease Examination: DHCR may freely examine the lease in effect on the base date, even if that lease commenced before the four-year lookback period, without requiring proof of fraud.
  • Preferential Rent Documentation: Failure to comply with 9 NYCRR § 2521.2(b) by listing both legal and preferential rents in the vacancy lease will result in the only stated rent being treated as the legal regulated rent.
  • Willfulness Analysis: Efforts to retroactively recharacterize a clearly documented legal rent as “preferential” are strong evidence supporting a finding of willfulness.

B. For Landlords

The case offers several cautionary lessons:

  1. Due Diligence on Acquisition: Purchasers of rent-stabilized properties must carefully review existing leases and registrations. If a vacancy lease plainly sets a single rent with no preferential designation, it is risky to later treat that rent as preferential. Such conduct may trigger overcharge liability with treble damages.
  2. Meticulous Drafting of Vacancy Leases: If an owner intends to charge a preferential rent:
    • The vacancy lease must clearly identify it as preferential; and
    • The lease must state the higher legal regulated rent alongside the lower preferential amount.
    Failure to do so will lock in the lower figure as the legal regulated rent.
  3. Limited Scope for Non-Willfulness Claims: Simply asserting confusion or reliance on internal practices or registrations is unlikely to meet the burden of proving non-willfulness, especially where the lease documents at acquisition are facially clear.

C. For Tenants and Tenant Advocates

For tenants and their advocates, the decision provides:

  • Support for Using Base-Date Vacancy Leases: Tenants can rely on vacancy leases in effect on the base date—even if those leases began before the four-year lookback period—to establish the base rent without having to prove landlord fraud.
  • Clear Strategy Against Undocumented “Preferential” Claims: If a landlord later claims that an apparently fixed rent in a vacancy lease was merely “preferential,” tenants may invoke East Riv. Group (and Rania Mesiskli) to argue that the stated amount is the legal regulated rent unless the lease clearly says otherwise.
  • Strong Position on Treble Damages: Where documentation shows that an owner has tried to retroactively recast rents or otherwise manipulate the characterization of rents, tenants can persuasively argue that the owner has not rebutted the willfulness presumption and that treble damages are appropriate.

D. Broader Doctrinal Significance

Doctrinally, East Riv. Group does not revolutionize rent law but refines several key points:

  • It harmonizes the strict four-year lookback rule of Regina and Fairley with the practical necessity of examining the lease in effect on the base date, even if that lease predates the four-year period.
  • It strengthens the integrity of the preferential rent regulatory regime by tying legal consequences to proper disclosure at the vacancy-lease stage.
  • It underscores that the statutory presumption of willfulness is not easily overcome, particularly where the overcharge arises from documentary manipulation rather than ambiguous or conflicting legal guidance.

VII. Conclusion

Matter of East Riv. Group, LLC v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal solidifies several important propositions in New York rent-stabilization law:

  1. For pre-HSTPA overcharge complaints, the four-year lookback rule and base-date methodology apply, and the lease in effect on the base date—though it may have commenced earlier—can properly be examined without a showing of fraud.
  2. The Rent Stabilization Code’s preferential-rent provisions are enforced strictly: when a vacancy lease lists only one rent and does not label it as preferential or disclose a higher legal regulated rent, that rent is deemed the legal regulated rent for future renewal increases.
  3. Once an overcharge is established, it is presumed willful. An owner who acquires a building with clear lease terms and later attempts to re-characterize the stated rent as “preferential” faces an uphill battle in rebutting that presumption, and treble damages will ordinarily follow.

Viewed in the broader landscape, the decision reinforces DHCR’s central role and broad discretion in administering the complex rent regulatory scheme, while providing both landlords and tenants with clearer guideposts on how base dates, vacancy leases, preferential rents, and treble damages will be treated in future overcharge disputes.

Note: This commentary is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, New York

Comments