AJ 210153-RT
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. AJ 210153-RT

                                              :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
               Ilene Gold,                       DOCKET NO. K 3103546-R
                                   PETITIONER : 


          On  October  8,   1986,   the   above-named   tenant   filed   an
          Administrative Appeal against an order  issued  on  September  8,
          1986, by the District Rent Administrator (10 Columbus Circle,
          New York, New York), concerning the housing accommodations  known
          as 3310 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment  No.  601,
          wherein the Administrator had dismissed the  tenant's  overcharge

          The tenant commenced the proceeding below by filing  a  complaint
          of rent overcharge with the Administrator in March of  1984.   In
          response to the tenant's complaint, the  owner  filed  an  answer
          stating in substance that  the  issues  raised  in  the  tenant's
          application had been determined by the Conciliation  and  Appeals
          Board (CAB) and a court case, pursuant to which the rent had been 
          recalculated, and credits or refunds given to the tenant for  any

          The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein,  stated
          that  a  tenant  may  not  waive  his  rights  under   the   Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code, but terminated the proceeding on  the
          ground that the "parties have apparently negotiated a  settlement
          of this matter . . .".  However, the Administrator did  attach  a
          rent overcharge calculation to this determination, which showed a 
          total rent overcharge (including treble damages) of $18,574.52.

          On appeal, the petitioner contends in substance that she did  not
          negotiate a settlement with the owner, that it is  apparent  from
          the rent calculation chart that she has been severely overcharged 
          and that the Administrator's dismissal should be reversed.
          In response to the petition the owner states in  pertinent  part:
          that the tenant did reach an agreement with it as to  the  amount
          of  overcharge  in  June  1984,  as  evidenced  by  the  tenant's
          computations submitted to owner at that time; that copies of  the
          Rent Ledger cards show that the tenant received an adjustment  in
          June and July of  1984;  and  that  the  Administrator  erred  in
          forwarding to the tenant calculations not based  on  the  factual
          rental history of the apartment where the  owner  had  reimbursed
          the tenant in accordance with the  orders  of  the  CAB  and  the
          court.  In support of its contentions, the  owner  submitted  the

           AJ 210153-RT
          tenant's computation (dated June, 1984) and the Rent Ledger cards 
          for 1983 and 1984, which  disclosed  that  the  tenant  had  been
          credited with a refund of $638.10 and  that  the  rent  had  been
          reduced to $507.99 as of July 1, 1984.

          After a careful consideration of the entire  evidence  of  record
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          Section 2520.13 of the current Rent Stabilization  Code  provides
          in pertinent part that an agreement by the tenant  to  waive  the
          benefit of any provision of the Rent Stabilization Law or Code is 
          void.  Accordingly, the tenant's  rent  overcharge  complaint  is
          being considered on the merits herein. 

          For the following reason,  however,  the  Commissioner  will  not
          consider all the rental records that have been submitted.

          Section 42A of the former Rent Stabilization Code  requires  that
          an owner retain complete records for each stabilized apartment in 
          effect from June 30, 1974  (or  the  date  the  apartment  became
          subject to rent stabilization, if  later)  and  to  produce  such
          records to the DHCR upon demand.

          Section 26-516 of the Rent Stabilization Law, effective April  1,
          1984, limited an owner's obligation to provide  rent  records  by
          providing that an owner may not be required  to  maintain  or  to
          produce rent records for more than four (4) years  prior  to  the
          most recent registration, and concomitantly, established  a  four
          year limitation on the calculation of rent overcharges.

          It has been the DHCR's policy that  overcharge  complaints  filed
          prior to April 1, 1984, are to be processed pursuant to  the  Law
          or Code in effect on March 31, 1984. (see Section 2526.1 (a)  (4)
          of the current Rent Stabilization Code.)  The DHCR has  therefore
          applied Section 42A of the former Code to  overcharge  complaints
          filed prior to April 1, 1984, requiring complete rent records  in
          these cases.  In following this policy, the DHCR has sought to be 
          consistent with the legislative intent of the Omnibus Housing Act 
          (Chapter 403, Laws of 1983), as implemented by the New York  City
          Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB), the predecessor  agency  to
          the DHCR, to determine rent overcharge complaints filed with  the
          CAB prior to April 1, 1984, by applying the law in effect at  the
          time such complaints were filed so as not to deprive such tenants 
          of their rights to have the  lawful  stabilized  rent  determined
          from the June 30, 1974 base date and so as not to deprive tenants 
          whose overcharge claims accrued more than  four  years  prior  to
          April 1, 1984 of the right to recover such overcharges.  In  such
          cases, if the owner failed to produce the required rent  records,
          the lawful stabilized rent would be determined  pursuant  to  the
          default procedure approved by the Court of  Appeals  in  61  Jane
          Street Associates v. CAB, 65 N.Y.2d  898,  493  N.Y.  S.  2d  455

          However, it has recently been held in the case of J.R.D. Mgmt. v. 
          Eimicke, 148 A.D.2d 610. 539 N.Y.S. 2d 667 (App. Div.  2d  Dept.,
          1989), motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to  the
          Court of Appeals denied ( App. Div. 2d Dept., N.Y.L.J., 
          June 28, 1989. p.25, col.1), motion for leave to  appeal  to  the

           AJ 210153-RT
          Court of Appeals denied (Court of  Appeals,  N.Y.L.J.,  Nov.  24,
          1989, p.24, col.4), motion for leave to reargue denied (Court  of
          Appeals, N.Y.L.J., Feb. 15, 1990, p.25, col.1), that the  law  in
          effect at the time of the  determination  of  the  administrative
          complaint rather than the law in effect at the time of the filing 
          of the complaint, must be applied, and that the  DHCR  could  not
          require an owner to produce more than four years of rent records.

          Since  the  issuance  of  the  decision  in  JRD,  the  Appellate
          Division, First Department, in the case of Lavanant v. DHCR,  148
          A.D.2d 185, 544 N.Y.S.2d 331 (App.  Div.  1st  Dept.  1989),  has
          issued a decision in direct conflict with  the  holding  in  JRD.
          The Lavanant court expressly rejected  the  JRD  ruling,  finding
          that the DHCR may properly require an owner  to  submit  complete
          rent records, rather than records for just four years,  and  that
          such requirement is both rational and supported by  the  law  and
          legislative history of the Omnibus Housing Act.

          Since in the instant case the subject dwelling unit is located in 
          the Second Department, the DHCR is constrained to follow the  JRD
          decision  in  determining  the  tenant's  overcharge   complaint,
          limiting the requirement for rent records to April 1, 1980. 

          The rental  records  from  that  date  reveal  an  overcharge  of
          $611.83.  Copies of the owner's records, however,  bear  out  the
          latter's assertion (with which the tenant has not disagreed) that 
          by July of 1984 it had adjusted the  rent  to  eliminate  further
          overcharges and refunded all overcharge to the tenant by  way  of
          rent credits.

          There  being,  then,  no  refund  or  rental  adjustment  (as  of
          September 8, 1986) due to  the  tenant,  it  is  clear  that  the
          tenant's petition must be denied.  It is noted  that  the  lawful
          stabilization rent for the subject apartment  as  of  January  1,
          1984 was $507.99.  Further the rent calculation chart prepared by 
          the Rent Administrator showing an additional rent overcharge  was
          based on the owner's failure to submit a rent  history  prior  to
          April 1, 1980 - a requirement overruled by the  JRD  decision  as
          outlined above.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code as interpreted in the aforementioned JRD decision, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied. 


                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting Deputy Commissioner


           AJ 210153-RT


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