AK 110235-RT
                                
                        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.:
                                        AK 110235-RT
       FRANK ROBBINS,                   DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
                                        DOCKET NOS.:
                                        Q-3121604-R/ CDR 25,690
                        PETITIONER      TENANT: FRANK ROBBINS
----------------------------------x


        ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
                                
                                
On  November 24, 1986, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed  a
Petition  for  Administrative Review against an order  issued  on
October 27, 1986, by the District Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus
Circle,  New  York,  New  York, concerning housing  accommodation
known  as  Apartment 2-G, 42-15 81st Street, Elmhurst, New  York,
wherein  the  District  Rent Administrator  determined  that  the
tenant had not been overcharged.

On  September  9,  1991,  the Commissioner  denied  the  tenant's
petition.

On  October 18, 1991, the proceeding was reopened based  upon  an
irregularity in a vital matter.

The   issue   in  this  appeal  is  whether  the  District   Rent
Adminis-trator's order was warranted.

The  applicable  sections of the law are Sections 2521.2,  2522.3
and 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

The  Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record
and  has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.

This  proceeding was commenced on March 22, 1984 by the  tenant's
filing  of  a  rent overcharge complaint and a fair  market  rent
appeal  with  the  New York City Conciliation and  Appeals  Board
(CAB),  the  agency  formerly charged  with  enforcing  the  Rent
Stabilization Law.

In  its  answer  to  the tenant's complaint, the  owner  (Wallman
Management Company) submitted rent ledgers for the periods:

          from October, 1985  through  December, 1985,
          from January, 1984  through  March,    1984,
          from July,    1982  through  September 1982,
          from Mar. 1,  1977  through  Mar. 30,  1977,
          from January, 1976  through  April,    1976,
          from January, 1975  through  April,    1975;
          
leases covering the periods:

          from March,   1978  through  February, 1982,
          from January, 1983  through  December, 1983,
          from January, 1986  through  December, 1987;
          
and  several  cancelled checks and invoices for improvements  in-
stalled in the subject apartment prior to the commencement of the
complaining tenant's initial lease.

In  Order  No.  CDR 24,690 issued October 27, 1986, the  District
Rent  Administrator  determined  that  no  rent  overcharge   had
occurred  and  dismissed the tenant's complaint.   Unfortunately,
the  copy  of the Administrator's order which was mailed  to  the
tenant  did  not contain the second page of the rent  calculation
chart.

In  this  petition,  the tenant contended in substance  that  the
Dis-trict  Rent  Administrator's order was incorrect  and  should
have  been reversed because the order failed to compute the legal
regulated rents for his tenancy and because he was never  sent  a
copy of the owner's answer to his complaints.

In response, the owner contended in substance that it submitted a
complete  rental history to the Division on August 21,  1986  and
that the tenant's petition should be denied.

On  March 1, 1991, the Administrative Review Unit of the Division
of  Housing  and Community Renewal (DHCR) mailed  to  the  tenant
com-plete  copies of the owner's answer to the tenant's complaint
and  the Administrator's order which included the second page  of
the  rent  calculation chart.  No response was received from  the
tenant.

On  September  9,  1991,  the Commissioner  denied  the  tenant's
petition  based  upon  the  tenant's  failure  to  set  forth  an
objection to the Administrator's order.


On  October 18, 1991, the proceeding was reopened based  upon  an
irregularity   in   a   vital  matter  in   that   the   tenant's
representa-tive  was  never served with complete  copies  of  the
owner's  answer to the tenant's complaint and the Administrator's
order.

On  October 29, 1991, the tenant's representative was served with
a  copy  of the owner's answer to the tenant's original complaint
and a complete copy of the District Rent Administrator's order.

On  December  6,  1991, the tenant representative  submitted  her
response  to  the owner's answer and contended in substance  that
the  owner  had  not submitted any proof that it had  served  the
prior  tenant with the Initial Legal Regulated Rent Notice  (DC-1
Notice), therefore the tenant herein was eligible to file a  fair
market  rent  appeal; the owner did not supply the Division  with
all  of  the leases for the prior and current tenants;  the  com-
plaining  tenant was not given copies of his initial and  renewal
leases  by the owner; the complaining tenant's vacancy lease  did
not  contain a rent stabilization rider, therefore the status  of
the  subject  apartment during the prior tenant's  occupancy  was
unknown; the former president of the tenant's association for the
subject  building stated that two fires occurred in the apartment
above  the  subject  apartment causing extensive  damage  to  the
subject apartment necessitating extensive repairs after the prior
tenant moved out; it was unfair to require the complaining tenant
to  pay for all the repairs/improvements which were necessary due
to  the fire; the complaining tenant has an Imperial stove  which
is  contrary to the owner's submission of documentation of having
installed a Slattery stove; and the cost of $3,784.00 to  replace
the  bathroom tiles was exorbitant.  In support of these  conten-
tions,  the tenant representative submitted an affidavit  of  the
former  President of the Tenant's Association dated  December  9,
1991.

The  Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding must  be
remanded for further processing.

A  review  of the record in the instant case indicates  that  the
prior  tenant (Herrera) was the first rent stabilized tenant  who
commenced  occupancy of the subject apartment on March  1,  1974,
however the owner did not submit any evidence to prove that a DC-
1  Notice  was  served  on  the  first  rent  stabilized  tenant.
Accordingly,   the  Commissioner  finds  that  the  Administrator
improperly  ignored the tenant's contention that he was  entitled
to file a fair market rent appeal.  Thus, this proceeding must be
remanded  to  determine  whether  the  tenant  was  entitled   to
challenge the initial legal regulated rent pursuant to Sections


25  and  26 of the former Rent Stabilization Code, and if so,  to
determine  whether the initial legal regulated rent  exceeds  the
fair market rent for the subject apartment.  The owner must first
be given the opportunity to establish if a DC-1 Notice was served
on  the  first  rent  stabilized tenant.  If  not,  the  tenant's
contention regarding the fair market rent appeal filed  prior  to
April 1, 1984 should be considered on the merits.  Also, the
Administrator must establish the lawful stabilization  rents  and
calculate any excess rent based on a complete rental history from
the  base  rent  date.   Furthermore,  this  proceeding  must  be
re-manded  to  determine whether the owner failed  to  issue  the
tenant   proper  vacancy  and  renewal  leases.   Finally,   this
proceeding  must be remanded to determine whether the  work  done
and the equipment installed in the subject apartment while it was
vacant  and prior to the commencement of the complaining tenant's
occupancy  quali-fied as improvements warranting a rent  increase
or  whether  the  work  done  and equipment  installed  was  mere
maintenance  and  re-pairs  for which  a  rent  increase  is  not
authorized.  Specifically, the Administrator  should  investigate
the  validity  of  the stove installation and the  cost  for  the
replacement of the bathroom wall and floor tiles.

The  Commissioner notes that the current managing  agent  of  the
subject  premises  is  Setam  Realty Company  of  82-01  Rockaway
Boulevard, Ozone Park, New York 11416.


THEREFORE,  in  accordance with the Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
Code, it is

ORDERED,  that this petition 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 Administrator's order is hereby revoked.


ISSUED:




JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                         Deputy Commissioner
    

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