Opinion
April 10, 2001.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered February 22, 2000, which denied defendant landlord's motion to vacate or modify the judgment entered October 26, 1999 by plaintiffs tenants pursuant to the order of the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal issued August 28, 1996, as modified by order of this Court entered September 17, 1998 (Matter of Pechock v. DHCR, 253 A.D.2d 655), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Anne Jaffe, for Plaintiffs-Respondents
Paul N. Gruber, for Defendant-Appellant
Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner, Rubin, JJ.
The landlord's motion to vacate or modify the judgment was properly denied for failure to show fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct in its procurement, or other ground for vacating a judgment under CPLR 5015(a). The amount of rent, if any, owed for the period between July 1991 and October 1995 can have no possible relevance to the calculation of damages in the judgment, which was limited to overcharges collected by the landlord from 1986 through June 19 91. Inasmuch as the August 1996 DHCR order expressly prohibited the tenants from either collecting a judgment or offsetting rent prior to the expiration of the period that the landlord had to seek administrative review, the alleged withholding of rent cannot be considered as an offset of the overcharge.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.