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. BF 110252 RO
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO. Q-3120807-T
               MARIO TUCCIARONE                  TENANT: MR. &  MRS.  THOMAS
                                                         MINTERN

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

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On June 18, 1987, the above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on  May
          15, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, 
          New York, concerning the housing accommodations  known  as  191-05
          35th Avenue, Flushing, New York, Apartment No. N. 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. 

               The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions of Section 26-513 of the Rent Stabilization Law. 

               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 appeal.  

               This proceeding was originally commenced in March,  1984,  by
          the filing of a fair market rent  adjustment  application  by  the
          tenants.

               The owner was served with a copy of the tenant's  application
          and afforded an opportunity to submit June 30, 1974 or  post  June
          30, 1974 comparability data for determining the fair  market  rent
          of the subject apartment.  The required comparability data was not 
          submitted.

               In Order Number CDR 30,323, the Rent  Administrator  adjusted
          the initial legal regulated rent by  establishing  a  fair  market
          rent of $410.82 effective January 1, 1983, the  commencement  date
          of the initial rent stabilized lease.  Based  on  the  failure  to
          submit June 30, 1974 or post June 30, 1974 comparability data, the 
          Rent ADministrator determined  the  fair  market  rent  using  the
          special fair market rent guidelines alone plus  an  allowance  for
          BF 110252 RO









          improvements  made  in  the  subject  apartment  just   prior   to
          occupancy  by  the  tenants  herein.   The  Administrator  further
          determined that excess rent of $8,929.36 had been paid up  through
          August 31, 1985 when the complaining tenants vacated  the  subject
          apartment and directed the owner to refund such excess rent.

               In this petition, the owner contends in substance that he did 
          submit leases  for  several  similar  apartments  to  the  subject
          apartment and that these rents  should  have  been  considered  in
          determining the fair market rent.  In support of such  contention,
          the owner submitted copies of leases for three other apartments in 
          the subject premises.

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

               Section 26-513 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 fair 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,l  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 opportunity in the proceeding before the Rent Administrator  to
          submit June 30, 1974 and post June 30, 1974 comparability data  as
          outlined above, but failed to do so despite the owner's contention 
          on appeal that he did submit copies of leases for other apartments 
          in the subject premises.  The lease information submitted  by  the
          owner for the first time on appeal cannot properly  be  considered
          since this is not a  de  novo  proceeding.   Moreover  such  lease
          information even if considered,  does  not  contain  the  required
          comparability data  as  outlined  above.   Accordingly,  the  Rent
          Administrator's order was warranted.

          BF 110252 RO










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

               ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and 
          the same hereby is, denied,  and   that  the  order  of  the  Rent
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is,  affirmed.   A  copy  of
          this order is being sent to the tenant currently in  occupancy  at
          the subject apartment. 

          ISSUED



                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner




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






























                                          
                            

                            ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BUREAU
                                 COVERING MEMORANDUM










          ARB Docket No.: BF 110252 RO

          DRO Docket No/Order No.: Q-3120807-T

          Tenant(s): Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Mintern

          Owner: Mario Tucciarone

          Code Section: 26-513 of Rent Stabilization Law

          Premises: 191-05 35th Avenue, Flushing, New York, Apt. N

          Order         and         Opinion         Denying         Petition
                           
               Petition  denied  on  basis  fair  market  rent  of   subject
          apartment was correctly determined.








          APPROVED:



          Processing Attorney:                                             

          Supervising Attorney:                                            

          Bureau Chief:                                                    

          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