DHCR Decisions
AJ 410334 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 NO.: AJ 410334 RO
227 East 57th Street DRO DOCKET NO.: L 3117410 R
Associates,
TENANT: Sue Erpf Van de Bovenkamp
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 23, 1986, the above-named owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on September 18, 1986, by
a Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known as
227 East 57th Street, New York, New York, Apartment No. 3D, wherein the
Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the tenant.
The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was filed 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.
This proceeding originated with the tenant's filing of an overcharge
complaint with the predecessor of he above-referenced Division. When
the owner did not furnish the Administrator with the rental records
needed to resolve that complaint, the Administrator utilized the default
procedure authorized by Section 42A of the Code, under which he made the
overcharge determination that has led to the instant appeal.
The petitioner now proffers a complete rental history of the subject
apartment, arguing inter alia (1) that the Commissioner should accept it
at this late stage because the Administrator did not give the owner
proper notice of the tenant's complaint and (2) that it shows there was
in fact no overcharge.
The tenant responds by stating in pertinent part: that at one point in
the owner's brief it is admitted that the owner's agent received the
complaint; and that the complaint contained the correct address of the
subject accommodations in the proper place, so that any negligence in
reading it cannot be allowed to benefit the owner. The tenant does not
address the claim that there was no overcharge in fact.
After careful consideration of the record, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that this petition should be granted.
AJ 410334 RO
The record shows that while the complaint should not indeed have misled
a careful reader, the cover letter accompanying it, and the subsequent
Final Notice of Pending Default, each bore a totally incorrect address
as that of the "premises" and "Housing Accommodation," respectively. In
view of this inadequate notice of the Administrator's request for the
rental history herein and of the consequences of not complying with that
request, the Commissioner cannot allow the default determination to
stand, and will therefore accept the rental history submitted with the
petition.
Calculation of the lawful rents based on the aforementioned history
indicates that there has been no overcharge.
If the owner has already complied with the Rent Administrator's order,
the tenant may repay the arrears due because of the instant
determination, in twelve equal monthly installments. Should the tenant
vacate the accommodations or have already vacated, such arrears are
payable immediately.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, revoked.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|