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



    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name