Opinion
May 23, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.).
On appeal, DHCR concedes, and we agree that a final money judgment should not have been entered in favor of the tenant until after DHCR renders a final order on the remand, to which DHCR consented. Otherwise, we find the determination of DHCR that there was a willful overcharge of rent, despite allegations of improvements made to the subject apartment for the period December 1, 1986 through August 31, 1988, supported by the record. The landlord had ample opportunity to demonstrate the legitimate expenditure of $12,160 and failed to do so (see, Matter of 985 Fifth Ave. v State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 171 A.D.2d 572).
We have reviewed petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.