ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BE 110149 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.: BE 110149 RO
                                    :
                                       DRO DOCKET NO.:
                                       Q 3121085-R
        PERSHING CRESCENT COMPANY

                    PETITIONER      :
------------------------------------X

  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
     On May 15, 1987, the above-named petitioner filed a Petition
for  Administrative Review against an order issued on October 14,
1986,  by the District Rent Administrator concerning the  housing
accommodation  known  as 141-30 Pershing  Crescent,  Queens,  New
York,  Apartment  No. 1B wherein the District Rent  Administrator
determined that the tenant had been overcharged.

      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.

      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.

      The  issue  in  this appeal is whether  the  District  Rent
Administrator's order was warranted.

      This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing of a
rent overcharge complaint by the tenant on March 30, 1984.

      The  tenant  took  occupancy of the  subject  apartment  on
February  1, 1981, pursuant to a three year vacancy  lease  at  a
monthly rental of $456.04.

      The  owner  was  served with a copy  of  the  complaint  on
November  30, 1984, and was directed to submit a complete  rental
history  for  the subject apartment from the base date  including
copies of all leases as required by the Rent Stabilization Code.

      In  Order  Number  24,532,  As Amended  the  District  Rent
Administrator  determined that the owner  had  collected  a  rent
overcharge  from  the tenant.  The Administrator established  the
lawful  stabilized rent based on the owner's failure to submit  a
complete rental history for the subject apartment and directed  a
refund  of  $10,676.94 including treble damages  for  overcharges
collected after April 1, 1984.

      In  this petition, the owner contends that the Division has
failed  to  provide the petitioner with a copy  of  the  tenant's
complaint, thus violating the petitioner's due process rights. In
support of its contention the petitioner has submitted a copy  of
a  letter addressed to the Division requesting for a copy of  the
tenant's  complaint.   The  petitioner  also  asserts  that   the
imposition of treble damages is not justified and results in  the
unjust  enrichment of the tenant.  Additionally,  the  petitioner
contends  that the District Rent Administrator disregarded  lease
documentation  submitted by the petitioner  in  establishing  the
lawful  stabilized  rent.   Copies of the  tenant's  initial  and
subsequent leases were submitted with the petition.  Lastly,  the
petitioner asserts that the District Rent Administrator erred  by
not granting a hearing on the issue of the rent overcharge.

      The tenant in response to the owner's petition asserts that
the  owner's  petition  should be denied because  the  owner  has
collected  an  overcharge and was afforded ample  opportunity  to
respond  to  the  tenant's complaint.  Additionally,  the  tenant
asserts  that  the  owner  did  not  file  the  petition   within
thirty-five (35) days.

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

      In  the instant case, a search of the records reveals  that
Pershing  Crescent Company was served with a copy of the tenant's
complaint at the address listed on the owner's registration

statement  filed  with the Division.  The  owner  has  listed  40
Randall Ave., Freeport, NY as his address during the registration
years  of  1991, 1990, 1989, 1987, 1986, 1985 and 1984, which  is
the  address used by the Administrator for the purpose of serving
the complaint and all subsequent notices.

     Although, the petitioner alleges that he requested a copy of
the  tenant's  complaint, he has failed to provide  the  Division
with  proof  of  mailing.   The copy  of  the  letter  which  was
submitted by the petitioner as proof of the request is not  dated
and  a  copy  of  this letter is not among the  contents  of  the
initial  proceeding.  The Commissioner notes that the  petitioner
received  a Final Notice of Pending Default dated July 17,  1986,
wherein the petitioner was requested to submit a complete  rental
history  for  the subject apartment and advised that  failure  to
comply  with this notice would result in the imposition of treble
damages.  The owner without justificatin failed to submit  leases
or  rent  ledgers.  Therefore, the Commissioner  finds  that  the
owner  was  given  ample opportunity to respond and  provide  the
Division with a complete proper.

      Section 42A of the Rent Stabilization Code requires that an
owner retain rent records for each stabilized apartment in effect
from  June  30, 1974 to date and produce them to the Division  of
Housing and Community Renewal upon demand.  If the apartment  was
decontrolled  from  Rent  Control Law,  the  owner  must  provide
satisfactory  documentary evidence of  the  apartment's  date  of
decontrol.

      Therefore,  the  Commissioner  finds  that  the  owner  has
defaulted in its obligation to provide a full rental history.

      In 1982, the CAB adopted procedures to be used to determine
an  apartment  rent  where an owner does not provide  a  complete
rental  history  of  the apartment.  In such  case  the  rent  is
established at the lowest of the following amounts:

     1)  The lowest stabilized rent for the same size apartment;

     2)  The current tenant's initial rent less any rent
         adjustment for the tenant's initial lease, and

     3)  The prior tenant's last rent.

These  procedures  have been adopted by DHCR and  upheld  by  the
Courts.

      In  the  instant  case, the Administrator  established  the
lawful stabilization rent as follows:

     1)  the lowest stabilized rent for the same size apartment.
         (apartment 2-B = $420.03).

     2)  the current tenant's initial rent ($456.04) minus a
         guideline increase of 17% minus a vacancy allowance of
         10% = $359.09.

     3)  the prior tenant's LAST rent = unknown.

      Item  number  2  results  in the  lowest  amount,  and  was
therefore  correctly adopted by the Administrator as  the  lowest
stabilization rent.

      In  reference  to  the  petitioner's  allegation  that  the
Administrator  erred by not granting a hearing on  the  issue  of
rent overcharge, a review of the records indicates that the owner
did  not  request a hearing throughout the review of the  initial
proceeding.  Additionally, the owner is advised that the granting
of  a hearing is discretionary upon the part of the agency and is
warrranted  only when a factual dispute requires  oral  testimony
and   an   examination  of  the  credibility  of  witnesses   for
resolution.   A  hearing on the issue of the rent overcharge  was
not warranted.

      Regarding the tenant's allegation that the owner's petition
was  not  filed within thirty-five days, a review of the  records
indicates that CDR 24,532 was amended to reflect the correct name
of the owner and the amended order was sent to the owner on April
13,  1987.   Thus,  the  owner's petition was  filed  within  the
requisite thirty-five day period.

      THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law  and  the
Emergency Tenant Protection Act, it is

      ORDERED,  that  this petition be and  the  same  hereby  is
denied,  and  that  the 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