DOCKET NUMBERS: BC 410508-RO & BF 410414-RO (REFILE OF BD 410185-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 NOS.: BC 410508-RO &
: BF 410414-RO (REFILE OF
BD 410185-RO)
541 OPERATING CORP., PETITIONER : DRO DOCKET NO.: TC 059956-G
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL
The abovenamed petitioner owner filed and refiled timely petitions for
Administrative Review against an order issued on February 17, 1987 by the
Rent Administrator of the Columbus Circle District Rent Office concerning
the housing accommodations known as 543 West 49th Street, Apartment 73,
Manhattan.
The petitions are substantially duplicates and are consolidated herein.
The (now former) tenant, Joseph Gilday, filed a complaint of overcharge in
February 1982 alleging that he had taken occupancy pursuant to a one year
lease commencing March 15, 1981 at a rent of $350.00.
Along with his complaint he submitted copies of leases with the 2 two
prior tenants furnished him by the owner - one with a Miguel Matos running
from December 25, 1980 to December 24, 1981 at $333.06 and one with a
Mario Cuervas running from October 24, 1980 to October 23, 1984 at
$317.20. Mr. Gilday urged that both leases were suspicious because the
Matos lease bore an obviously old xeroxed signature but the information as
to name, dates, etc. was obviously newly hand printed; the Cuervas lease
was apparently for 3 years but the total rent set forth was for only one
year; and neither was signed by the owner. He also alleged that a long
term tenant in the apartment directly below had advised him that the
subject apartment had been vacated for about 2 years before he moved in.
In response to Notices the owner submitted additional copies of the
abovenoted leases plus a series of 5 leases with one Jaime Colon running
from December 1, 1972 to November 30, 1981 with rents from $180.00 to
$265.59.
The record also contains a copy of a Report of Statutory Decontrol
(vacancy) filed December 4, 1972 stating that the apartment became vacant
on November 30, 1972 and was rerented on December 1, 1972 and listing
Jamie Colon as the tenant.
Mr. Gilday alleged that he had been advised by the former rental agents
for the building (Mullen & Woods) that the last prior tenant of the
apartment was Jaime Colon at a rent of $70.80 and that the apartment was
vacant from 1978 until hr took occupancy.
The herein appealed order of the Rent Administrator states that the owner
had failed to submit a full rental history and that the tenant disputes
DOCKET NUMBERS: BC 410508-RO & BF 410414-RO (REFILE OF BD 410185-RO)
the history that was submitted; established an initial rent of $301.72 by
a default procedure; and directed a refund of $2335.98 through October 14,
1984 including interest.
In its petitions the owner, in substances, urges that there is, in fact, a
complete rental history which shows that there were no overcharges.
In response the former tenant reiterates his prior allegations.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the proceeding should be remanded
for further processing.
The record does, in fact, contain a complete rental history, albeit a
strongly disputed one, so the Administrator's order is incorrect on its
face.
If the rental history was rejected because of the tenant's allegations,
the order does not clearly say so nor is there any indication in the
record of an investigation of the allegations.
On remand the matter should be reexplored by examination of the originals
of all leases and other rental records, inquiries of former rental agents
and a hearing. The owner should be given an opportunity to explain the
submission of documents which clearly depart from normal business records.
If it should be found that the owner, in fact, submitted falsified rental
documents in addition to imposing civil penalties treble damages should be
imposed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted to the
extent of remanding the proceeding to the Rent Administrator for further
processing in accord herewith. The order of the Rent Administrator
remains in full force and effect except that the directive to make a
refund is stayed until a new order is issued on remand.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|