the legal regulated rent for the apartments of plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class; (4) any
leases offered by defendants to plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are invalid and unlawful
unless they are offered on lease forms and terms prescribed by DHCR; and (5) plaintiffs and
members of the Sub-Class are not required to pay any rent increases unless and until legally
permissible rent-stabilized lease offers are made to, and accepted by, said plaintiffs and members
of the Sub-Class.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction "represents an effort to co-ordinate the relationship
between courts and administrative agencies" and "generally enjoins courts having concurrent
jurisdiction to refrain from adjudicating disputes within an administrative agency's authority,
particularly where the agency's specialized experience and technical expertise is involved"
(Sohn v Calderon, 78 NY2d 755, 768 [1991] [internal quotation marks and citation
omitted]).
Pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, "the matter should be determined by DHCR,
given its expertise in rent regulation" (Olsen v Stellar W. 110, LLC, 96 AD3d 440, 442 [1st Dept 2012],
lv dismissed 20 NY3d 1000 [2013]). "DHCR can investigate plaintiffs' fraud allegations,
determine the regulatory status of the apartment, and, if warranted, apply the default formula
adopted in [Thornton v Baron, 5
NY3d 175 (2005)] to determine the base rate" (Olsen, 96 AD3d at 442).
Although the court "has jurisdiction to determine the issues of the actual amount of the
overpayment, whether it was willful, and whether treble damages are warranted," DHCR would
more appropriately determine those issues (Wilcox v Pinewood Apt. Assoc., Inc., 100 AD3d 873, 874 [2d Dept