DHCR Decisions
DOCKET NUMBER: AI-410190-RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
-------------------------------------X
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF : DOCKET NUMBER: AI-410190-RO
:
LINCOLN PLAZA ASSOCIATES, : DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
: DOCKET NUMBER: L 3112794-R
:
PETITIONER :
-------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 16, 1986 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
August 12, 1986 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations
known as 20 East 64th Street, New York, New York, Apartment 25-O.
The Commissioner noted 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 overcharges.
A review of the record indicates that on March 29, 1984, the
tenant filed a complaint with the New York City Conciliation and
Appeals Board (CAB) wherein the tenant stated that he moved into
the subject apartment on April 1, 1976 pursuant to a written
lease of two years commencing on April 1, 1976 and expiring on
March 31, 1978 at a monthly rental of $500.00; that his rent was
thereafter increased to $542.50 per month as of April 1, 1978
under a two-year renewal lease, then to $607.60 per month as of
April 1, 1980 under a two-year renewal lease, and then to $704.81
as of April 1, 1982 under a three-year renewal lease; that his
leases contain no rent history rider; that he therefore believes
he is being overcharged; and that he requests a full rent history
from the base date.
On March 30, 1984, the CAB mailed a notice to the owner advising
DOCKET NUMBER: AI-410190-RO
it that the CAB had recently received a complaint from the tenant
relating to a possible rent overcharge; that when docketing
procedures are completed, the owner will be mailed a copy of the
tenant's complaint; that the owner will be required to produce
rent records for the subject apartment dating back at least to
June 30, 1974, or the date on which the apartment first became
subject to rent stabilization, if later; and that failure to
produce such rent records will result in the establishment of a
stabilized rent by the rent agency.
On September 25, 1984, the Division mailed a copy of the
tenant's complaint to the owner together with the appropriate
answer forms advising the owner that the Division required
complete copies of all leases (including Riders) for the subject
apartment from the base rent date. The owner was further advised
that if any such lease was not available, the owner could submit
rent ledgers or other satisfactory proof of rent collected.
On November 7, 1984, the owner filed an answer to the tenant's
complaint wherein the owner stated that the base rent date for
the subject apartment was June 30, 1974; that the rent charged
and paid on the base rent date was $420.00 per month; and that
the rent was then increased to $460.00 per month as of "January
1, 1974" (sic) under a one year lease and then to $500.00 per
month as of April 1, 1976 when the apartment was rented to the
subject tenant. The remainder of the rental history set forth by
the owner was identical to that set forth by the tenant in the
complaint. The owner did not submit any leases, or other rent
records, with its answer.
On May 15, 1986, the tenant advised the Division that his rent
was increased to $768.24 as of April 1, 1985 under a two-year
renewal lease.
On June 24, 1986, the Division mailed a Final Notice of Pending
Default to the owner advising it that in 1984, the owner was
served with a copy of the tenant's complaint and was informed at
such time that the Division demanded complete copies of all
leases for the subject apartment from the base rent date; that if
the base rent date was after June 30, 1974, the owner was further
required to submit documentation to substantiate the base rent
date; that to date, the owner had failed to comply with said
requirements; that the owner was being offered a final
opportunity to so comply; and that the Division will establish
the lawful stabilized rent for the apartment by using the default
computation methods set forth therein if the owner fails to so
comply.
On July 9, 1986, the owner responded by submitting the
Certificate of Occupancy for the subject premises showing a date
of completion of December 7, 1971. On a covering message, the
owner pointed out said date of completion, but offered no
explanation for its supposed significance. The owner did not
submit any of the requested documentation in reply to the
Division's notice of pending default.
DOCKET NUMBER: AI-410190-RO
On August 12, 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 excess security and accrued interest, of $10,126.86
during the period from April 1, 1976 through August 31, 1986;
established the lawful stabilization rent at $670.97 per month
under the lease from April 1, 1985 through March 31, 1987; and
directed the owner to roll back the rent to the lawful stabilized
amount and to make full refund to the tenant.
This order was based upon the owner's failure to provide a full
rental history for the subject apartment in accordance with its
obligations under Section 42A of the Code.
On appeal the petitioner-owner alleges, in substance, that it did
not overcharge the tenant; that the prior tenant of the subject
apartment was being charged $460.00 per month; that $460.00 per
month was the rent as of the base date; that the subject tenant's
initial rent of $500.00 per month as of April 1, 1976 was
actually $26.76 less than the maximum legal rent the owner would
have been entitled to under Rent Guidelines Board Order No. 7 for
a two-year vacancy lease; and that all subsequent rental
adjustments over the $500.00 per month rent were in accordance
with the applicable guidelines orders. The owner submitted with
its administrative appeal copies of the tenant's complaint, the
owner's answer, the final notice of pending default, and the
owner's reply to said notice. All such documents confirm the
contents of the record before the District Rent Administrator, as
described herein above.
The owner also submitted a complete set of leases for the
subject apartment covering the period from prior to the June 30,
1974 base rent date. The owner did not offer any explanation
whatsoever why it had not submitted these leases in the
proceeding before the District Rent Administrator.
After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The District Rent Administrator properly determined the tenant's
complaint of rent overcharges on the basis of the record before
the Administrator. The owner had twice been given the
opportunity to submit rent records to substantiate the rental
history of the subject apartment from the base rent date. The
owner failed to submit such documentation as required pursuant to
the provisions of Section 42A of the Code, and the District Rent
Administrator was therefore correct in determining the tenant's
complaint by applying the standard default computations. On
appeal, the owner has submitted the previously requested
documentation, a complete set of leases, but has offered no
explanation for its failure to do so in the proceeding before the
District Rent Administrator. In view of the foregoing, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the order and determination
of the District Rent Administrator should be affirmed.
This order may, upon the expiration of the period in which the
owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and enforced by the tenant
in the same manner as a judgment or not in excess of twenty
percent thereof per month may be offset against any rent
thereafter due the owner.
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, denied, and that the order of the District Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BUREAU
COVERING MEMORANDUM
ARB Docket No.: AI-410190-RO
DRO Docket No/Order No.: L 3112794-R
Tenant(s): JERRY GREY
Owner: LINCOLN PLAZA ASSOCIATES
Code Section: 10B, 20A, 42A, and 63 RSC
Premises: 20 WEST 64TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y., APT. 25-O
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
DRA properly determined the tenant's complaint of rent
overcharges based on the owner's Section 42A default. The owner
submitted a complete set of leases on appeal but offered no
explanation whatsoever for its failure to do so below.
APPROVED:
Processing Attorney:
Supervising Attorney:
Bureau Chief:
DOCKET NUMBER: AI-410190-RO
Deputy Counsel:
Deputy Commissioner:
Mailed copies of Order and Determination to:
Tenant(s)
Owner
Tenant's Atty.
Owner's Atty.
Date: : by
signature
|