specific errors of law and fact that the RA's errors were based on.
In answer to the PAR, the owner contends that the tenants offer no evidence or argument
to challenge the rent history or Rent Administrator's Order; that the tenants' PAR is full of
speculation and does not include any evidence or reason to look at rental events prior to the base
date; that the RA correctly deregulated the subject apartment based on RSL §26-504.2; that the
tenants offer no legal or factual basis to challenge the 2007 deregulation, 13 years after the
deregulation occurred and 9 years after the statute of limitations to challenge such deregulation
expired; that the tenants' complaint centers on the sole allegation that there was a bump in the rent,
which caselaw has repeatedly held is not a basis for a rent overcharge claim or for a colorable
claim of a fraudulent scheme 10· deregulate the apartment; and that the record shows that the exit
registration was filed in 2007, which is corroborated by the 2007 lease.
The tenants submitted a response to the owner's answer, contending that the owner
improperly calculated the purported !Als by increasing the rent by 1140th of the cost of such IA!s
instead of correctly calculating such increase by using I/60th of the cost of such IA!s; that a
statement ·from prior tenants dated 12/5/20 I 2 states that the owner spent $30,000.00 renovating
the subject apartment which contradicts the owner's claim that $46,561.00 was spent on such work;
and that this raises a colorable claim of fraud (citations omitted).
The Commissioner finds that the tenants' PAR is denied.
While the Commissioner recognizes that the base date for this post-Housing Stability
Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HTSPA) overcharge complaint is June 14, 2015, the RA_in this
case was