STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: AL 210457-RO
DRO DOCKET NO.: CDR 27461
2 WEST END REALTY T/C 83191-G
COMPANY PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X OTHER PARTY: INA MEYEROWITZ,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On December 31, 1986, the above named petitioner-current-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on November 28,
1986 by the Rent Administrator at 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York
concerning housing accommodations known as apartment number 3K, at 2 West
End Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Administrator established the
stabilized rent and directed the prior and the current owner to refund
$4,039.59 including interest from April 1, 1984.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the evidence relevant to the issues
raised in the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was originally commenced on January 12, 1984, by the
filing of a complaint of rent overcharge with the New York City
Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB), the agency formerly charged with
enforcing the Rent Stabilization Law) by the tenant.
The owner failed to submit a rental history from the base date.
Based on a finding that the owner had failed to submit a complete rental
history, the Administrator employed a default procedure to determine the
stabilized rent and the overcharges to be refunded.
In its Petition, the current owner asserts that it took title to the
subject building in April, 1982 and that the order below should be
modified to reflect the fact that it sent the tenant a check for
$3,050.15 ( what it claims is the full amount of the current owner's share
of the refund due) and to further reflect the fact that the prior owner,
Shorecrest Apartments, alone, owes the tenant the balance of the refund:
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the Petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the Petitioner does not challenge the
calculation of the overcharges. As to the Petitioner's request that the
order below be modified to reflect its alleged payment to the tenant,
(without finding that any such funds were in fact paid) the Commissioner
DOCKET NUMBER: AL 210457-RO
finds that the Petitioner has not provided any basis for the modification
of the subject order. This would still be the case even if it had been
proven beyond any doubt that said payment had been made. This is so
because the payment post-dated the issuance of the order.
As to the question of apportionment, the Commissioner finds that the order
below amply provided for apportionment of the refund as between the prior
owner and the Petitioner current-owner. The appealed order reads, in
pertinent part as follows:
"The Rent Stabilization Law provides that in the absence of evidence of
any collusion between the present owner and the former owner, the
obligation of the present owner to refund excess rent is limited to such
rent actually collected by it and may not be extended to excess rent
collected by the former owner ....
The current and prior owner are directed to make refunds to the tenant for
those overcharges collected by it as set forth on the annexed chart
within thirty (30) days of the tenant's written request.
The former owner, Shorerest Apartments, Inc., is responsible for any rent
collected by it in excess of the lawful stabilized rent, for the period
between February 1, 1979 and May, 1982."
The Commissioner notes that the appealed order states that "The tenant,
since filing the complaint, has vacated the subject apartment. The
Commissioner finds no basis in the record for that statement. Moreover,
the Division's registration records for the subject apartment indicate
that the tenant entered into a renewal lease for the subject apartment in
1990. Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the appealed order should be
modified by deleting therefrom the above quoted sentence as its
incorporation in the appealed order resulted from an error in vital
The Commissioner notes that the Administrator's order, as amended by this
order and opinion, may, upon the expiration of the period in which the
owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Article Seventy-eight of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and enforced by the tenant in the
same manner as a judgment unless the tenant has in fact received a credit
of any portion thereof.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,it is
ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and that
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is amended in accordance
with this order and opinion.