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
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NO. BD 210094 RO
                                              :             BC 210074 RT
          ARTHUR WIENER  AND  IRA  D.  BLUM           DRO  DOCKET  NO:  7579
            

                                PETITIONERS   : 
          ------------------------------------X 

                   ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING TO RENT 
          ADMINISTRATOR


               On  April  2,  1987  and  March  4,  1987,  the   above-named
          petitioner-owner and tenant  filed  Petitions  for  Administrative
          Review against a corrected order issued on February 26,  1987,  by
          the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New  York,  New  York,
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 1360 Ocean Parkway, 
          Brooklyn,  New  York,  Apartment  No.   2M,   wherein   the   Rent
          Administrator determined the fair  market  rent  pursuant  to  the
          special fair market rent guideline promulgated  by  the  New  York
          City Rent Guidelines Board for use in calculating fair market rent 
          appeals. These petitions are being consolidated herein.

               The Administrative Appeals are being determined  pursuant  to
          the provisions of Section 26-513 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

               The issue herein is whether the  Rent  Administrator's  order
          was warranted.

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

               This proceeding was originally commenced in July 1984, by the 
          tenant's filing of a Tenant's  Objection  to  Rent  in  which  the
          tenant stated that there was a rent overcharge  and  that  he  was
          questioning the fair market rent.  The tenant first took occupancy 
          of the subject apartment on December 1, 1976 at a  monthly  rental
          of $240.00.

               In response to the tenant's objection, the owner submitted  a
          rental history consisting of copies of leases from 1976.

               In Order Number 7579 issued on February 12,  1987,  the  Rent
          Administrator established a fair market rent of $189.24  effective
          December 1, 1976 pursuant to a finding that the subject  apartment
          had previously been subject to rent  control  and  that  the  1976
          maximum base rent rate (hereafter MBR) for the  subject  apartment
          BD 210094 RO, BC 210074 RT









          was $164.56.   The  Rent  Administrator  further  determined  that
          excess rent of $7408.85 had been collected from December  1,  1976
          through November 30, 1986, and directed the owner to  refund  this
          excess rent to the tenant.

               In Corrected Order Number 7579 issued on February  26,  1987,
          the Rent Administrator established the same fair  market  rent  of
          $189.24 effective December 1, 1976, but changed the refund  period
          to April 1, 1980 through February 28,  1987,  and  found  a  total
          excess rent of $5400.00 during this period.

               In the owner's petition, the owner alleges in substance  that
          construction of the subject premises was completed on  August  12,
          1964; that the subject premises was never subject to rent control; 
          and that therefore the tenant was precluded  from  filing  a  fair
          market rent appeal.  In support  of  such  contention,  the  owner
          submitted a copy of a 1964 Certificate of Occupancy for  1358-1376
          Ocean Parkway.  However such certificate is  not  clearly  legible
          and appears to refer to a swimming pool.

               In the tenant's petition, the  tenant  alleges  in  substance
          that the February 12, 1987 order should not  have  been  corrected
          and that he is entitled to a refund of $7408.85 as  determined  in
          such order rather than the refund of $5400.00 as determined in the 
          corrected order.

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

               An examination of the rent records and evidence in this  case
          is inconclusive on the issue as to whether  the  subject  premises
          was  ever  subject  to   the   rent   control   law.    The   Rent
          Administrator's listing of a 1976 MBR for the subject apartment is 
          not supported  by  documentary  evidence  in  the  file  and  such
          documentary evidence has also  not  been  located  at  the  appeal
          level.  In addition, the owner's Certificate  of  Occupancy  which
          appears to refer to a swimming pool does  not  disclose  when  the
          subject premises was constructed.  Accordingly the proceeding must 
          be remanded for a determination of this issue  with  both  parties
          being afforded an opportunity to submit additional  evidence.   If
          it is found that the owner is correct that  the  subject  premises
          was never subject to rent control, then the tenant's  fair  market
          rent appeal must be rejected and the tenant's overcharge complaint 
          determined on the  merits.   If  it  is  found  that  the  subject
          premises was subject to rent control, then the  fair  market  rent
          appeal order should be upheld and a determination made with regard 
          to the tenant's contention on appeal as to  the  effective  period
          for the refund of excess rent.

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



          BD 210094 RO, BC 210074 RT









               ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative  review  be,
          and the same hereby are, 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.

          ISSUED



                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner




                                                    
          ```````````````
































                            ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BUREAU
                                 COVERING MEMORANDUM










          ARB Docket No.: BD 210094 RO, BC 210074 RT

          DRO Docket No/Order No.: 7579

          Tenant(s): Ira D. Blum

          Owner: Arthur Wiener

          Code Section: 26-513 of Rent Stabilization Law

          Premises: 1360 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, Apt. 2M

          Order        and        Opinion        Remanding        Proceeding
                           
               Proceeding remanded to determine  issue  of  whether  subject
          premises was ever rent controlled thereby entitling tenant  to  be
          eligible to file a fair market rent appeal.









          APPROVED:



          Processing Attorney:                                             

          Supervising Attorney:                                            

          Director: 
              
          Deputy Commissioner:                                             

          Mailed copies of Order and Determination to:
                           Tenant(s)                 
                           Owner                     
                           Tenant's Atty             
                           Owner's Atty              


                           Date:              :  by               
                                                    signature
                    


                                      
    

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