Matter of Rego Estates v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 20 AD3d
539, 540-541 [2005]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly annulled that portion
of the determination, and remitted the matter for a new calculation of the legal regulated
rent.
The Supreme Court properly denied the Marrones' counterclaim challenging the
determination to impose a penalty of treble damages for the overcharges during the
period of November 2008 through December 2009. Pursuant to Rent Stabilization Law
of 1969 (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-516 (a), "once the
occurrence of a rent overcharge has been established, it becomes incumbent upon the
landlord to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the overcharge was not
willful" (Matter of Obiora v
New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 77 AD3d 755, 756
[2010]; see Matter of
Metropolitan 118-80 Ltd. Partnership v New York State Div. of Hous. &
Community Renewal, 83 AD3d 944 [2011]). Since the DHCR determined that
[*3]the Marrones failed to carry that burden, our review
is limited to determining whether there is " 'record support and a rational basis'
for that determination" (Matter
of Ador Realty, LLC v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 25 AD3d
128, 141 [2005], quoting Matter of Century Tower Assoc. v State of N.Y. Div.
of Hous. & Community Renewal, 83 NY2d 819, 823 [1994]). The
determination of the DHCR that the Marrones failed to carry that burden was not
arbitrary and capricious, and had a rational basis (see Matter of Metropolitan 118-80 Ltd. Partnership v New York
State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 83 AD3d 944 [2011];
Matter of Obiora v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,
77 AD3d at 756). Hall, J.P., Sgroi, and Barros, JJ., concur.