Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, December 2, 2019

Joseph A. Altman for appellant-respondent.

Housing Conservation Coordinators (Ava Ferenci of counsel) for respondent-appellant.

Final judgment, entered October 17, 2018, modified to vacate the court's calculation of the amount of the overcharge, including treble damages, and to remand for further proceedings, including a recalculation consistent with the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA); as modified, final judgment affirmed, with $25 costs. Appeal and cross appeal from order, dated July 31, 2018, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the final judgment.

Landlord's contention that no colorable claim of fraud exists that would warrant the examination of more than four years of rental history is unavailing, in view of the legislature's recent enactment of the HSTPA (L 2019, ch 36, § 1, part F) that is applicable to this pending litigation (see Dugan v London Terrace Gardens, L.P., 177 AD3d 1 [2019]), which extends the statutory "lookback period" for overcharge proceedings from four to six years, and permits review of rental history beyond the [*2]lookback period in a determination of the legal regulated rent (see Simpson v 16-26 E. 105, LLC, 176 AD3d 418, 418 n 1 [1st Dept 2019]).

Civil Court's calculation of the amount of the overcharge was pursuant to the methodology in effect prior to passage of the HSTPA. Pursuant to the HSTPA that methodology has changed significantly. Among other things, the HSTPA provides that the legal regulated rent for purposes of determining most overcharges "shall be the rent indicated in the most recent reliable annual registration statement filed and served upon the tenant six or more years prior to the most recent registration statement, . . . plus in each case any subsequent lawful increases and adjustments" (Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [RSL] {**66 Misc 3d at 29}[Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516 [a] [i]). The new law also sets forth a comprehensive set of nonexclusive records that a court shall consider in determining legal rents and overcharges (see RSL § 26-516 [h]).

"In view of the comprehensive changes made by the HSTPA with respect to the proper method of calculating legal rents and overcharges, we must remand the matter to the motion court so that it can, in the first instance, set forth a methodology consistent with the HSTPA" (Dugan v London Terrace Gardens, L.P., 177 AD3d at 10). The legislature has made changes to the law that directly impact this case, and has made those changes applicable to this pending litigation. Therefore, a remand is appropriate. The motion court shall give the parties an opportunity to present additional evidence with respect to the calculation of rents and overcharges under the HSTPA (see Dugan, 177 AD3d at 10).

Shulman, P.J., Cooper and Edmead, JJ., concur.