Opinion
April 20, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.)
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioners' contentions, the determination by the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, that the petitioners had overcharged the complaining tenant on rent was neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion ( see, Matter of Century Tower Assocs. v. State of New York Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 83 N.Y.2d 819; Matter of Branch v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 217 A.D.2d 581). Once it was determined that the petitioners had overcharged the complaining tenant, it became incumbent upon the petitioners to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that those overcharges were not willful ( see, Matter of Wai Leung Chan v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 207 A.D.2d 552). The petitioners failed to meet this burden and, consequently, the penalty of treble damages was properly imposed ( see, Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 26-516 [a]; Matter of Chu v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 231 A.D.2d 567).
Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.