Docket No. AL 220018-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.AL 220018-RO
                                                  District             Rent
                                                  Administrator's
                                                  DOCKET NO. 
                                                  AC 620406-R
          Equity Investments                      
          c/o J.R.D. Management Corporation
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


              On  December  2,  1986,  the  above-named  landlord  filed  a
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on November 
          24,  1986  by  a  Rent  Administrator  concerning   the   housing
          accommodation known as Apartment 1B, 1460 College Avenue,  Bronx,
          New York.

              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 by the subject tenant filing  a
          rent overcharge complaint, dated March 4, 1986.

              On April 17, 1986, the  Division  of  Housing  and  Community
          Renewal (D.H.C.R.) mailed to the landlord a copy of the  tenant's
          complaint, and a notice which informed the landlord that  it  had
          twenty days from the above-mentioned date in which to  submit  an
          answer.

              On September 30, 1986, the D.H.C.R mailed a "final notice" to 
          the  subject  landlord  stating  that  an  answer  had  not  been
          interposed, and informed the landlord that if an  answer  is  not
          received by the rent agency with n  twenty  days  of  the  above-
          mentioned date, the proceeding would be determined based  on  the
          record that was in front of the Administrator.

              The record in front of the Administrator indicates that 
          the landlord did not submit an answer.
              
              In the order here under review the  Administrator  determined
          that the maximum collectible rent  (MCR),  effective  January  1,
          1983 through the issuance date of the administrator's order,  was
          $198.18 per month. (The Administrator's order stated that it  did
          not include the 1986 maximum base rent increase that the landlord 
          maybe entitled to collect).






          Docket No. AL 220018-RO
              
              The landlord's  petition  alleges  that  the  Administrator's
          determination is different from the rent that is  listed  in  the
          Office of Rent and Housing  Maintenance-Rent  Control  Division's
          rent roll, which the landlord attaches  to  its  petition,  which
          lists the subject apartment's  M.C.R.  for  January  1,  1983  as
          $229.13 per month.  The landlord's petition further asserts  that
          it submitted an answer to the Rent Administrator on  October  17,
          1986;   that   the   Administrator's   order   contradicted   the
          aforementioned rent roll, and that the Administrator's  order  is
          confusing in that it lists the M.C.R. as being $198.18 per  month
          from January 1, 1983 through the issuance date, but allows for an 
          increase in the 1986 maximum base rent (MBR).

              To it's petition the landlord attaches a copy of it's  answer
          which was submitted to the Administrator, dated October 17, 1986.

              After careful  consideration,  the  Commissioner  is  of  the
          opinion that the landlord's petition should be denied.

              The Commissioner finds, based upon the preponderance  of  the
          evidence,  that  the  landlord  submitted  an   answer   to   the
          Administrator.

              Since the Administrator did not review the landlord's  answer
          to the tenant's complaint, the landlord's right  to  due  process
          was  denied.   However,  it  is  not  necessary  to  remand  this
          proceeding to  the  Administrator,  because  the  Administrator's
          order  merely  noted  what  the  subject  apartment's  MCR   was,
          effective on January  1,  1983,  based  upon  the  rent  agency's
          record.

              The  Commissioner  notes  that  under  Administrative  Review
          Docket No. ARL 07452-B, the D.H.C.R. determined that the  January
          1, 1983 M.C.R. that was listed in the  aforementioned  rent  roll
          was in error, as it failed to take into  account  the  fact  that
          the landlord was denied 1980-1981 MBR increases for  the  subject
          apartment.  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the landlord 
          is  collaterally  estopped  from  raising  the   issue   of   the
          aforementioned rent roll in this proceeding.

            Even if the issue of the rent roll could be properly raised  it
          should be  noted that the rent agency's  record  notes  that  the
          subject apartment's M.C.R. for January 1, 1983  is  $198.18.   As
          the aforementioned rent roll is not an order,  but  is  merely  a
          response  to  the  landlord's  request   for   information,   the
          Commissioner   finds   that   any   discrepancies   between   the
          aforementioned rent roll and the rent agency's  records  must  be
          found in favor of the latter.

                  The  record  reflects  that  on  October  7,  1985,   the
          Administrator issued an order, under Docket No. 6M 0318,  denying
          an MBR increase for 1984-1985, as the landlord had  not  properly
          certified that it removed at least  80%  of  the  rent  impairing
          violations that were on record as of  January  1,  1983,  or  six
          months prior to the filing of 1984-1985 violation  certification,
          whichever was later.   As  the  aforementioned  order  denied  an
          increase of the 1984-1985 MBR,  the  subject  apartment's  M.C.R.
          remained at $198.18 during the above-mentioned years.






          Docket No. AL 220018-RO

              The rent agency's record reflect that the  landlord  did  not
          file an appeal of the above-mentioned order (Docket No. 6M 0318). 
          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Docket No.  6M  0318
          is a final determination of the rent agency.

              The Administrator's order in this proceeding merely noted the 
          subject apartment's M.C.R., as previously determined by  a  final
          order of the rent agency, and therefore, the owner's petition  is
          an impermissible collateral attack of a  final  determination  by
          the rent agency.  Accordingly, the Commissioner  finds  that  the
          Administrator's order should be affirmed.

              As the order permanently increasing the 1986-1987 M.B.R.  was
          issued on June 29, 1988, almost two years after the  issuance  of
          the  Administrator's  order,  the  Commissioner  finds  that  the
          Administrator's order was not "arbitrary and  confusing",  as  it
          was not known at the time the Administrator's  order  was  issued
          whether the 1986 M.B.R. would be increased or not.

              THEREFORE,   in   accordance   with   the   City   Rent   and
          Rehabilitation Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

              ORDERED, that this  petition  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is
          denied, and that the District Rent Administrator's Order be,  and
          the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                           
                                              Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                              Acting 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