BD 410331 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.:  BD 410331 RO

                 ICC REALTY CORPORATION,

                                                  DRO DOCKET NO.:  TA 12357

                                  PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X                                   


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On April  3,  1987,  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          February 27, 1987 by the District Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus 
          Circle, New York,  New  York  concerning  housing  accommodations
          known as Apartment 10C at 244 West 72nd  Street,  New  York,  New
          York wherein the Rent  Administrator  determined  that  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.

          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 appeal.

          This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing of a  fair
          market rent appeal application by the tenant with  the  New  York
          City Conciliation and  Appeals  Board,  one  of  the  predecessor
          agencies to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). 
          The  tenant  took  occupancy  pursuant  to  a  lease   commencing
          September 1, 1983 and expiring August 31, 1984 at a monthly  rent
          of $900.00.

          The owner was served with a  copy  of  the  application  and  was
          afforded an  opportunity  to  submit  rent  data  for  comparable
          apartments.  In answer to the application, the owner stated  that
          by notice dated May 7,  1984,  the  owner  was  notified  of  the
          tenant's Fair Market Rent Appeal and was afforded an  opportunity
          to submit June 30, 1974 comparability data. By notice dated  June
          21, 1984 and September  25,  1986,  the  owner  was  afforded  an
          opportunity to submit post-June 30, 1974 comparability data.  The 
          September 25, 1986 notice advised the owner that proof of service 
          of an initial legal  regulated  rent  notice  (DC-2  Notice)  was
          required for comparable apartments.

          By letter submitted October 14,  1986,  the  owner  requested  an
          extension of 30 days ro respond until November 14, 1986.






          BD 410331 RO

          A summary Notice was sent to the owner on November 6,  1986.   By
          letter submitted November 12, 1986, the owner stated that it  was
          compiling the data requested in the September 25, 1986 notice and 
          requested an extension of three weeks from November 16,  1986  to
          respond.

          By notice dated November 17, 1986, the owner was afforded a Final 
          extension of 10 days to respond.

          By response submitted November  25,  1986,  the  owner  submitted
          rental histories for all apartments in the  subject  C  line  and
          the A line.  The rental histories indicated tat  only  apartments
          14C and 5A were rented to a first stabilized  tenant  within  the
          period 1 year prior to and one year after the initial renting  of
          the subject apartment  and  that  the  initial  rents  for  those
          apartments wee $815.00  and  $850.00,  respectively.   The  owner
          requested that these two apartments be used in the  comparability
          study.

          By notice dated November 28, 1986, the  owner  was  requested  to
          submit proof of service of  a  DC-2  Notice  for  the  comparable
          apartments.  The notice afforded the owner 10 days to respond and 
          the notice stated that no extensions of time would be granted.

          By letter submitted December 8, 1986, the owner stated that  DC-2
          notices with proof of service for the comparable apartments  were
          not available, but that the owner was attempting to obtain copies 
          of the apartment registration (RR-1) Forms along  with  proof  of
          service  on  the  tenants  of  those  apartments  from  the  Rent
          Stabilization Association (RSA).  The owner stated  that  it  had
          been advised by RSA  that  those  documents  would  be  available
          promptly.  The owner stated that the tenants  of  the  comparable
          apartments had failed to  file  objections  to  the  registration
          within 90 days and therefore their initial rents were not subject 
          to further challenge.

          In Order Number  CDR  29,182,  the  District  Rent  Administrator
          adjusted the initial legal regulated rent by establishing a  fair
          market  rent  of  $450.61  effective  September  1,   1983,   the
          commencement date  of  the  initial  rent  stabilized  lease  and
          directed a refund to the tenant of excess rent in the  amount  of
          $20,680.48, including excess security.  The Administrator  stated
          that apartments 14C and 5A were similar in size  to  the  subject
          apartment  and  were  rented  to  a   first   stabilized   tenant
          contemporaneously with the subject apartment, but that the  owner
          had failed to submit proof of service  of  DC-2  notice  or  RR-1
          forms for those apartments.  Therefore the fair market  rent  was
          established based on  the  special  fair  market  rent  guideline
          alone.

          In this petition, the owner contends  that  by  submission  dated
          February 17, 1986 it submitted to the DHCR  copies  of  apartment
          registration forms with  proof  of  service  on  the  tenants  of
          apartments 14C and 5A,  but  that  the  Administrator  failed  to
          utilize  the  rent  for  those  apartments  in  determining   the
          applicant's fair market rent.  The owner stated that in February, 
          1986 it received copies of the RR-1 Forms from RSA  and  that  it
          had previously received from RSA proof of service of those forms. 






          BD 410331 RO
          The owner submits with its petition  a  copy  of  its  submission
          dated February 17, 1987 which includes copies of RR-1  forms  for
          apartments 14C and 5A, an affidavit from Sheldon  Factor  of  RSA
          attesting to service of the forms, an RSA mailing list  including
          the comparable apartments,  and  an  RSA  carrier  route  summary
          indicating the number of pieces mailed to  the  subject  building
          date stamped by the post office May 29, 1984.

          In answer to this petition the tenant asserts  that  the  owner's
          failure to submit proof of service of DC-2 Notices or RR-1  Forms
          for  apartments  14C  or  5A  properly  precluded  use  of  those
          apartments  in  the  comparable  study;  that  apartment  5A  was
          occupied by a family member or business associate  of  the  owner
          throughout  this   period,   and   is   now   occupied   by   the
          superintendent; that apartment 14C has, on information and belief 
          also been occupied by an  associate  of  the  owner,  that  these
          apartments therefore should  not  be  considered;  and  that  the
          Administrator's order should be affirmed with treble damages.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should  be
          denied.

          Section  26513  of  the  Rent  Stabilization   Law  provides,  in
          pertinent part, that fair market rent adjustment applications are 
          to  be  determined  by  the  use  of  special  fair  market  rent
          guidelines  orders  promulgated  by  the  New  York   City   Rent
          Guidelines Board and by the rents  generally  prevailing  in  the
          same area for substantially similar housing  accommodations.   In
          order to determine rents generally prevailing in  the  same  area
          for substantially similar housing accommodations,  it  is  DHCR's
          procedure for fair market rent appeal cases filed prior to  April
          1, 1984 to allow owners to  submit  June  30,  1974  free  market
          rental data for complete lines of apartments, beginning with  the
          subject line.  The average of such comparable rentals  will  then
          be updated by annual guidelines increases.   Alternatively,  DHCR
          procedure allows owners to have comparability determined  on  the
          basis of rents charged after June 30, 1974.  In order to use this 
          method, owners were required prior to November 1, 1984 to  submit
          rental history data for all stabilized apartments in the  subject
          premises and subsequent to November 1, 1984 to submit  such  data
          for complete lines of apartments beginning with the subject line. 
          Post-June 30, 1974 rent data will be utilized if  the  comparable
          apartment was rented to a first stabilized tenant within one year 
          of the renting of the subject apartment and if the owner  submits
          proof of service of an initial legal regulated rent notice  (DC-2
          Notice) or apartment registration form indicating that  the  rent
          is not subject to challenge.

          The record in this case indicates that the owner was afforded  an
          adequate opportunity, including extensions of time to submit  the
          required comparability data.  The  owner  stated  in  its  letter
          submitted December 8, 1986 that it was attempting to  obtain  the
          required proof of service of RR-1 forms from  the  RSA  and  that
          such documents would be available promptly.  It is noted that the 
          owner chose to utilize RSA to serve RR-1 Forms on the tenants and 
          the owner cannot use the delay in obtaining  the  documents  from
          RSA  as  an  excuse  for  failing  to  timely  comply  with   the
          Administrator's  notices.   The  owner  submitted  the   required
          documents by submission dated February 17,  1987,  2  1/2  months






          BD 410331 RO
          after the final 10 day notice.  It is noted that the copy of  the
          owner's submission dated February 17, 1987 in the Administrator's 
          file was hand delivered to the DHCR and was date-stamped received 
          by the  DHCR  on  March  2,  1987,  after  the  issuance  of  the
          Administrator's order.  No proof has been submitted by the  owner
          that this submission on February 27, 1987 was in  fact  submitted
          prior  to  the  issuance  of  the  Administrator's  order.    The
          Commissioner finds that the owner's submission was untimely, that 
          there was no denial of due  process  in  this  case  which  would
          warrant considering the submission on administrative appeal,  and
          that the Administrator properly determined the fair  market  rent
          utilizing the special fair market rent guideline alone.

          Regarding the tenant's request for treble damages, the 
          Commissioner notes that since the tenant  failed  to  raise  this
          issue   affirmatively   by   filing   a   timely   petition   for
          administrative review, the raising of this issue in an answer  to
          the owner's petition cannot operate as a proper challenge to  the
          Administrator's order.  However, it is noted that treble  damages
          are not awarded in fair market rent appeal cases   (Accord:   ART
          2020-L and ARL 2023-L).

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

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



          ISSUED:
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  ELLIOT SANDER
                                                  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