Decided September 10, 1992 Appeal from (1st Dept: 180 A.D.2d 412) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR DENIED

Thus, the Deputy Commissioner's determination that $1,000 constituted the legal regulated rent, and that the petitioner was therefore required to base renewal leases offered to the tenant on that amount of rent, was rational (seeMatter of 10th St. Assoc., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 110 A.D.3d 605, 973 N.Y.S.2d 619 ; Matter of Coffina v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 61 A.D.3d 404, 877 N.Y.S.2d 249 ). Further, the Deputy Commissioner did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding that this was the case even though the vacancy lease was executed by the temporary receiver (seeMatter of El–Kam Realty Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 180 A.D.2d 412, 579 N.Y.S.2d 368 ; see also 9 NYCRR 2520.6 [i] [defining "owner" to include a court-appointed receiver] ). Accordingly, that branch of the petition which was to annul the determination dated November 3, 2015, should have been denied.

Pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2526.1 (f) (2), a current owner is responsible for his own and his predecessors' overcharges and penalties under the Rent Stabilization Law. Of course, the current owner may sue his predecessors for their proportionate share. In addition, notwithstanding the petitioner's delinquency in registering with the DHCR ( see, 9 NYCRR 2527.3 [c]; Matter of El-Kam Realty Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 180 A.D.2d 412; Rusty Realty Assocs. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 161 A.D.2d 207), that agency's delay in serving the petitioner with the tenant's complaint was not a cause of the petitioner's failure to submit the requested rental history, which the DHCR had demanded numerous times during 1988 and 1989. Accordingly, as the petitioner was not prejudiced by the alleged delay in serving him with the complaint, there is no reason to remit the matter to the DHCR for consideration of this issue ( see, e.g., Matter of Corning Glass Works v. Ovsanik, 84 N.Y.2d 619; Matter of Cortlandt Nursing Home v. Axelrod, 66 N.Y.2d 169, cert. denied 476 U.S. 1115).

DHCR is not required to hold a hearing on an overcharge complaint. (RSC 2527.5 [h] [DHCR may grant or hold hearing]; RSC 2529.7[f] [DHCR Commissioner may grant or hold hearing]; 9 NYCRR 2051.3[b] [hearing need not be held when record is complete based on written submissions]; seeMatter of DeSilva v NY State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal , 34 AD3d 673 [2d Dept 2006] [as DHCR need not hold hearing, petitioner was not denied due process based on DCHR's failure to hold evidentiary hearing]; Matter of Merit Mgt. LLC v NY State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, 278 AD2d 178 [1st Dept 2000] [finding of overcharge could be made rationally without hearing]; Matter of El-Kam Realty Co. v NY State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, 180 AD2d 412 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 755 [DHCR not required to hold hearing; due process requires only reasonable notice and opportunity to present objections]; Matter of Rubin v Eimicke, 150 AD2d 697 [2d Dept 1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 704 [landlord given sufficient due process by receipt of tenant's complaint and opportunity to respond]).

Finally, the Court has noted Counsel's position that agency regulations precluded consideration of the further evidence Ms. Wesby submitted to establish the length of her tenancy in the subject apartment; and acknowledges that deference is owed to DHCR's "construction and interpretation of its own regulations" ( see Matter of El-Kam Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 180 AD2d 412, 412-13 [1st Dept 1992]; see also Matter of Cale Dev. Co. v Conciliation Appeals Bd., 94 AD2d 229, 232 [1st Dept 1983], aff'd 61 NY2d 976.) The Court is also aware of authority that "DHCR may consider untimely filings at any stage of the administrative proceedings upon good cause shown ( see, 9 NYCRR 2527.5 [d])."