Opinion
November 14, 1999.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered July 8, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul in part the determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated October 9, 1998, denying petitioner's application for interest, attorneys' fees and treble damages on her claim, denominated by her as one for rent overcharge, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Robert E. Levy, for petitioner-appellant.
Louise Belulovich, for respondent-respondent.
Jay H. Berg, for respondents-intervenors-respondents.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.
DHCR's determination to process the tenant's "rent overcharge" complaint as a Fair Market Rent Appeal and to adjust the legal regulated rent to the fair market rent (see, Matter of McKensie v. Mirabal, 155 A.D.2d 194; Matter of Jemrock Realty Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 169 A.D.2d 679, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 852) and to direct the owner to refund the excess rent but not to impose treble damages, interest, and attorneys' fees (see, Rent Stabilization Law §§ 26-512, 26-513, 26-516; Rent Stabilization Code § 2526.1; Matter of Ista Mgt. v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 161 A.D.2d 424) was rationally based upon the record and in accordance with the applicable law (Matter of Salvati v. Eimicke, 72 N.Y.2d 784, 791; Matter of Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.