AI 210200 RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: AI 210200 RO
P. SIRULNICK AND SON,
DRO DOCKET NO.: K 3104204-R
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On September 24, 1986 the above-named petitioner-owner filed an
Administrative Appeal against an order issued on August 21, 1986
by the District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,
Jamaica New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as
457 Schenectady Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment E7.
The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was initiated prior
to April 1, 1984. Sections 2526.1(a)(4) and 2521.1(d) of the
Rent Stabilization Code (effective May 1, 1987) governing rent
overcharge and fair market rent proceedings provide that
determination of these matters be based upon the law or code
provisions in effect on March 31, 1984. Therefore, unless
otherwise indicated, reference to Sections of the Rent
Stabilization Code (Code) contained herein are to the Code in
effect on April 30, 1987.
The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of Sections 10B, 20A, 42A and 63 of the Code.
The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator
properly determined the tenant's complaint of rent overcharge.
A review of the record indicates that on February 14, 1984, the
tenant filed a complaint with the New York City Conciliation and
Appeals Board (CAB) wherein she stated that the owner of the
subject building is P. Sirulnick and Son; that she moved into the
subject apartment on September 20, 1977 pursuant to a written
lease of two years commencing on September 20, 1977 and expiring
on September 19, 1979 at a monthly rent of $175.00; that her rent
was thereafter increased to $196.00 per month as of April 7, 1980
under a two-year renewal lease and then to $227.36 as of April 9,
1982 under a three-year renewal lease; and that she believes she
is being overcharged.
On March 20, 1984, the CAB mailed a notice to the owner advising
it that the tenant had filed a complaint relating to a possible
rent overcharge; that after docketing procedures are completed,
AI 210200 RO
the owner will be sent a copy of the complaint; and that the
owner will be required to produce rent records for the subject
apartment from the base rent date.
On October 4, 1984, the Division mailed a copy of the tenant's
complaint to the owner, together with the appropriate answer
No response was received and on June 12, 1986, the Division
mailed a final notice of pending default to the owner. The owner
was indicated on all noticed sent by the CAB and the Division as
P. Sirulnick and Sons at 505 Chestnut Street, Cedarhurst, New
The record does not contain any response to the final notice and
on August 21, 1986, the District Rent Administrator issued the
order appealed herein.
The District Rent Administrator's order determined that the
tenant had been overcharged a total, including treble damages and
excess security, of $2,723.19 during the period from September
20, 1977 through April 8, 1985; established the lawful
stabilization rent at $20.32 per month under the lease from April
9, 1982 through April 8, 1985; and directed the owner to roll
back the rent to the lawful stabilized amount and make full
refund to the tenant.
This order was based upon the owner's failure to submit a
complete rental history in accordance with its obligations under
Section 42A of the Code.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner alleges, in substance, that it
has never owned the subject premises; that from November 1981
until September 5, 1984, the building was owned by B.R.S. Realty
Company; that on September 6, 1984, the building was sold to
A & Z Realty; that the prior owner, B.R.S. Realty Company, was
never notified of the pending complaint; and that the new owner
should be permitted to submit the data originally requested. The
petitioner submitted a partial unexecuted copy of a deed for the
subject premises dated September 6, 1984 from B.R.S. Realty
Company to A & Z Realty. Sanford Sirulnick is indicated thereon
as a general partner of B.R.S. Realty Company.
The tenant replied that she believes P. Sirulnick and Son did
own the subject premises and that B.R.S. Realty is a subsidiary
management company of P. Sirulnick and Son.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the proceeding should be
remanded to the District Rent Administrator for further
processing as described hereinbelow.
A review of the rent records maintained by the Division indicates
that the owner of the subject building was listed as B.R.S.
Realty Company at 505 Chestnut Street, Cedarhurst, New York on
the April 1, 1984 registration. On the 1985 and 1986
registrations, however, the owner is indicated as Sol Gross with
offices in Brooklyn, New York and on all subsequent registrations
the owner is listed as A & Z Realty with offices in Brooklyn, New
AI 210200 RO
It appears, therefore, that the June 12, 1986 final notice of
pending default was mailed to a former owner considerably after
the Division was advised of the change in ownership. In vie of
the foregoing, the Commissioner is of the opinion that this
proceeding should be remanded to the District Rent Administrator
who should, on remand, notify the current owner of record of the
tenant's overcharge complaint and afford such owner a reasonable
opportunity to respond thereto.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be and the same hereby
is granted to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the
District Rent Administrator for further processing in accordance
with this order and opinion. The automatic stay of so much of
the District Rent Administrator's order as directed a refund
which resulted from the filing of this administrative appeal is
hereby continued until a new order is issued upon remand. The
District Rent Administrator's order and determination remains in
full force and effect in all other respects.