court is by no means precluded from reviewing the history of a tenancy in order to determine
whether the premises is subject to rent regulation. This is the precise holding of the Appellate
Division in East West Renovating Co. v
New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal, (16 AD3d 166, 167 [1st
Dept 2005]), where the Court stated that "consideration of events beyond the four-year period is
permissible if done not for the purpose of calculating an overcharge but rather to determine
whether an apartment is regulated" (see also 422 E. 14th St. Assoc., LLC v Vlashos, 21
Misc 3d 137 [A] [App Term 1st Dept 2008]).
To the extent that petitioner relies on the 2001 Crump lease as its sole basis for deregulating
the premises, said lease is contrary to the express terms of the RSC and void against public
policy to the extent that it provided for a fictitious and impermissible legal rent of $2000 as a
basis to improperly remove the subject apartment from rent stabilization. As it is apparent, as a
matter of law, that there was no other cognizable basis for deregulation of the subject premises in
2001, the apartment still falls under the purview of the RSL. Accordingly, respondent is entitled
to summary judgment dismissal of the petition as the petition fails to state a basis for eviction
under the RSL.
Respondent also asks the court to make a determination as to his rent overcharge claim
based on DHCR's default formula and that said overcharge was willful. Issues of fact exist as to
the appropriate calculation of the legal rent for the subject unit and whether any overcharge was
willful. These issues include, inter alia, whether the DHCR default formula is the
"appropriate vehicle for fixing the base date rent" under these circumstances (Thornton v Baron, 5 NY3d 175,