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.: BA 410121 RO
West 56th St. Associates Co., DRO DOCKET NO.: TC-080745 G
TENANT: Jon Cantor
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION IN PART AND REMANDING
PROCEEDING TO RENT ADMINISTRATOR
On January 2, 1987, the above-named owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on November 28, 1986, by
the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York,
concerning the housing accommodations known as 330 West 56th Street, New
York, New York, Apartment No. 4D, wherein the Rent 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 a complaint of
rental overcharge. Attached to that complaint was inter alia an
apparent copy of an owner's record of tenants and rentals for the
subject apartment for the period from October 1, 1974, through September
30, 1985, on which the tenant had apparently written "landlord supplied
The owner's Answer to the complaint referred to an annexed "rent
ledger," which rather than being such a ledger (with entries made a the
times of their corresponding transactions), appears instead to be a
rent-calculation chart prepared all at one time. That chart includes
annual increases of 2.2% (in addition to vacancy and renewal increases)
commencing on October 1, 1975.
The Administrator subsequently sent the owner a Final Notice of Pending
Default, demanding inter alia, complete copies of all leases for the
subject apartment, covering the entire period from the "base rent date"
to the date on which the tenant who filed the complaint took occupancy.
In response the owner resubmitted the aforementioned Answer and annexed
chart, along with a copy of a Certification of Eligibility issued on
November 15, 1974, by the City Department of Development, granting a
partial tax exemption for the subject premises pursuant to Section 421
of the Real Property Tax Law.
In the ensuing Order, here appealed, the Administrator calculated an
overcharge based on actual-rent figures (in an appended chart)
corresponding neither to those in the apparent ledger that the tenant
had submitted nor to those submitted by the owner.
In this petition, the owner alleges in substance that the Administrator
erred in not granting the aforementioned 2.2% rental increases, and that
the owner has been prejudiced by arithmetical errors involving rental
increases commencing with the lease of September 15, 1982.
In answer to the owner's petition, the tenant alleges in substance that
additional rent overcharges should have been calculated.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted
in part and the proceeding remanded for redetermination of the
The owner of a building constructed pursuant to RPTL Section 421-a is
allowed nine annual cumulative rental increases of 2.2% of the initial
rent. Petitioner established below that it was entitled to such
increases for the subject apartment, but the Administrator did not
include them in his overcharge computations. The order must therefore
Further, the record contains no substantiated rental history, so that
(a) no basis for the figures used in the Administrator's calculations is
apparent and (b) no recalculation by the Commissioner is possible. The
matter must therefore be remanded to the Administrator for
redetermination of the tenant's complaint, which redetermination will
allow the nine increases discussed in the preceding paragraph and afford
the parties an additional opportunity to submit a complete rental
history including copies of prior leases.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is, granted to the
extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator for
further processing in accordance with this order and opinion. The
automatic stay of so much of the Rent Administrator's order as directed
a refund is hereby continued until a new order is issued upon remand.
However, the Administrator's determination as to the rent is not stayed
and shall remain in effect, except for any adjustments pursuant to lease
renewals, until the Administrator issues a new order upon remand.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner