BG 210328 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.: BG 210328 RO

                    LENOX ASSOCIATES,
                                                  DRO DOCKET NO.: TC 078499-G
                                   
                                                  TENANT:  ANNIE GREEN
                                  PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X                                   


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On July  15,  1987,  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          June 12, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New 
          York, New York, concerning the housing  accommodations  known  as
          222 Lenox Road, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. 3K, wherein the 
          Rent Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged  the
          tenant.

          The Administrative Appeal is being  determined  pursuant  to  the
          provisions of Section 2526.1 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 issues raised by the administrative appeal.

          This  proceeding  was  originally  commenced  by  the  filing  in
          October, 1983, of a rent overcharge complaint by the  tenant  who
          first moved to the subject apartment on July 1, 1983 at a  rental
          of $480.00 per month.

          The owner was served  with  a  copy  of  the  complaint  and  was
          requested to submit rent records from the base date to prove  the
          lawfulness of the rent being charged.  The owner did  not  submit
          any rental history for the subject apartment.

          In Order Number CDR 30,555,  the  Rent  Administrator  determined
          that, due to the owner's failure  to  submit  a  complete  rental
          history, the  tenant  had  been  overcharged  in  the  amount  of
          $3,291.81 including interest on the  overcharge  occurring  after
          April 1, 1984, and directed the owner to refund  such  overcharge
          to the tenant as well as to reduce the rent.

          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that there  was






          BG 210328 RO
          an improper determination in that the appropriate rental  history
          was not used.  The owner submitted no rental history  along  with
          its petition.

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

          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).

          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,
          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.






          BG 210328 RO
          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,  1980.
          However, the owner herein did not submit a  rental  history  form
          April 1, 1980 so that the Rent Administrator's order  determining
          a rent overcharge  on  the  basis  of  the  owner's  default  was
          warranted.

          Because this determination concerns  lawful  rents  only  through
          June 30, 1985, the owner is cautioned to adjust subsequent  rents
          to an amount no greater than that determined by this  order  plus
          any lawful increases and to register any adjusted rents with this 
          order  and  opinion  being  given  as  the  explanation  for  the
          adjustment.

          This order may, upon the expiration of the period  in  which  the
          owner may institute a proceedi g  pursuant  to  Article  Seventy-
          Eight of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and  enforced
          by the tenant in the same manner as a judgment or not  in  excess
          of twenty percent thereof per month may  be  offset  against  any
          rent thereafter due the owner.



          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.




          ISSUED:
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  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