In Heights Assoc. v. Bautista (178 Misc. 2d 669 [App. Term, 2d Dept 1998] the Civil Court (Badillo, J.) found that the tenant had been overcharged and awarded treble damages against the current owner on the ground that it had failed to offer evidence that the overcharge was not willful. On appeal to the Appellate Term, Second Department, the landlord challenged the Civil Court's imposition of treble damages. The Appellate Term, surprisingly, held that DHCR's imposition of treble damages was ultra vires the Rent Stabilization Law. It based its decision upon the principles that "treble damages . . . are punitive damages . . . designed to punish and deter proscribed or offensive conduct, and. . . that the motive of one party cannot be imputed to another" (at 673). Under the circumstances, the court held (at 673), "the treble damages cannot, consistent with the Rent Stabilization Law's requirement of willfulness . . . ordinarily be imposed upon a current owner for the overcharges collected by the prior owner." It noted that "to the extent that the Rent Stabilization Code extends liability for treble damages for such overcharges to current owners . . . it is out of harmony with the statute that it is designed to implement and with established principles of law and cannot be applied . . . ." (Id. at 673.)