STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:  BE  110399  RO
                                                 D.R.O. DOCKET NO.:       
                                              :          TC          80750-G
                  CRYSTAL  APARTMENTS,             Tenant:  Annette   Thomas

                                 PETITIONER   :  


               On May  1,  1987,  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  timely
          refiled a Petition for Administrative Review of an order issued on 
          August 27, 1986, by the District Rent Administrator,  10  Columbus
          Circle, New York,  New  York,  concerning  housing  accommodations
          known as Apartment 4-N, 91-30  191st  Street,  Hollis,  New  York,
          wherein the   District  Rent  Administrator  determined  that  the
          tenant had been overcharged.

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

               This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing  of  a
          rent overcharge complaint by the tenant with  the  New  York  City
          Conciliation and Appeals Board, one of the predecessor agencies to 
          the  DHCR.   The  tenant  took  occupancy  pursuant  to  a   lease
          commencing September 15, 1982 and expiring September 30, 1984 at a 
          monthly rent of $316.00.

               The owner's then managing agent was served with a copy of the 
          complaint and was requested to submit rent records  to  prove  the
          lawfulness of the rent being charged, but did not respond.  On 
          April 21, 1986 a Final Notice of Pending Default was sent  to  the
          same agent.  Neither the owner nor that agent responded.     

               In Order Number CDR 21,340, the District  Rent  Administrator
          established  the  lawful  stabilized  rent  at  $183.92  effective
          September 15, 1982 through August 31, 1986,  due  to  the  owner's
          failure to submit a complete rental history, found a rent 

          overcharge of $14,071.80, including  excess  security  and  treble
          damages on that portion of the overcharge occurring on  and  after
          April 1, 1984, and directed the owner to refund such overcharge to 
          the tenant.  

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BE 110399 RO

               In this petition, the owner, by its current  managing  agent,
          contends that the District Rent Administrator had sent notices  in
          this case to the prior managing agent, and thus it was  unable  to
          answer.  The owner states that it  is  enclosing  all  leases  and
          lease renewals to date.  The owner encloses leases for the subject 
          premises from July,  1981  through  September,  1986.   The  owner
          additionally contends that all increases are  in  accordance  with
          rent stabilization guidelines. 

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should
          be granted in part.

               Section 42A of the former Rent  Stabilization  Code  requires
          that  an  owner  retain  complete  records  for  each   stabilized
          apartment in effect from June 30, 1974 (or the date the  apartment
          became subject to rent stabilization, if later)  to  date  and  to
          produce such records to the DHCR upon demand.

               Section 26-516 of Rent Stabilization Law, effective April  1,
          1984, limited an owner's obligation to  provide  rent  records  by
          providing that an owner may not be required to maintain or produce 
          rent records for more than  4  years  prior  to  the  most  recent
          registration, and concomitantly, established a 4  year  limitation
          on the calculation of rent overcharges.

               It has been the DHCR's  policy   that  overcharge  complaints
          filed prior to April 1, 1984 are to be processed pursuant  to  the
          law or Code in effect on March 31, 1984. (See Section 2526.1(a)(4) 
          of the current Rent Stabilization Code.) The  DHCR  has  therefore
          applied Section 42A of the former Code  to  overcharge  complaints
          filed prior to April 1, 1984, requiring complete rent  records  in
          these cases.  In following this policy, the DHCR has sought to  be
          consistent with the legislative intent of the Omnibus Housing  Act
          (Chapter 403, Laws of 1983), as implemented by the New  York  City
          Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB), the  predecessor  agency  to
          the DHCR, to determine rent overcharge complaints filed  with  the
          CAB prior to April 1, 1984 by applying the law in  effect  at  the
          time such complaints were filed so as not to deprive such  tenants
          of their right to have the lawful stabilized rent determined from
          the June 30, 1974 base date and so as not to deprive tenants whose
          overcharge claims accrued more than 4 years prior to April 1, 1984 
          of their right to recover such overcharges.  In such cases, if the 
          owner failed to produce the  required  rent  records,  the  lawful
          stabilized rent  would  be  determined  pursuant  to  the  default
          procedure approved by the Court  of  Appeals  in  61  Jane  Street
          Associates v. CAB, 65 N.Y.2d 898,  493  N.Y.S.2d  455  (1985),  in
          cases involving rent overcharge complaints filed prior to April 1, 

               However, it has recently been held in the case of J.R.D. Mgt. 
          v. Eimicke, 148 A.D.2d 610, 539 N.Y.S.2d 667 (App. Div.  2d  Dep't
          1989), motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal  to  the
          Court of Appeals denied (App. Div. 2d Dep't,  N.Y.L.J.,  June  28,
          1989, p.25, col.1), motion for leave to appeal  to  the  Court  of
          Appeals denied (Court of Appeals, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 24, 1989, p.  24,
          col. 4)., motion for leave to reargue denied  (Court  of  Appeals,

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BE 110399 RO
          N.Y.L.J., Feb. 15, 1990, p. 25, col. 1), that the law in effect at 
          the time of the  determination  of  the  administrative  complaint
          rather than the law in effect at the time of  the  filing  of  the
          complaint must be applied and that the DHCR could not  require  an
          owner to produce more than 4 years of rent records.

               Since the issuance of the  decision  in  JRD,  the  Appellate
          Division, First Department, in the case of Lavanant v.  DHCR,  148
          A.D.2d 185, 544 N.Y.S.2d 331  (App.  Div.  1st  Dep't  1989),  has
          issued a decision in direct conflict with the holding in JRD.  The
          Lavanant court expressly rejected the JRD ruling, finding that the 
          DHCR may  properly  require  an  owner  to  submit  complete  rent
          records, rather than records for just four years,  and  that  such
          requirement  is  both  rational  and  supported  by  the  law  and
          legislative history of the Omnibus Housing Act.

               Since in the  instant  case  the  subject  dwelling  unit  is
          located in the Second  Department,  the  DHCR  is  constrained  to
          follow the JRD decision in  determining  the  tenant's  overcharge
          complaint, limiting the requirement for rent records to  April  1,

               DHCR registration records indicate that a change of  managing
          agents  took  place  in  1985.   An  examination  of  the   record
          discloses that the Final Notice was sent  to  the  prior  managing
          agent in 1986, although the Division was on notice of  the  change
          in  managing  agents.   Therefore,  service  of  that  notice  was
          inadequate, as it did not provide the owner with either notice  or
          an opportunity to submit the  required  rental  information.   The
          proceeding is therefore remanded to the  Administrator  to  afford
          the owner, through its current managing agent, an  opportunity  to
          submit rent records for the subject apartment from April 1,  1980.
               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law  and
          Code, it is

               ORDERED, that  this  petition  be  and  the  same  hereby  is
          granted to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the District 
          Rent Administrator for further processing in accordance with  this
          order and opinion.  The automatic stay of so much of the  District

          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


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BE 110399 RO

                                          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