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 410188 RO
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO. TC-76082-G
               DAVID TSENG                       TENANT: ANGELA RODRIGUEZ

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

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On July 28, 1987, the above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on June 
          23, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, 
          New York, concerning  the  housing  accommodations  known  as  460
          Audubon Avenue, New York, New York, Apartment No. C2, wherein  the
          Rent Administrator determined that the owner had  overcharged  the
          tenant.

               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 Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions of Sections 11 and 42A of the former 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 issue raised by the administrative appeal.  

               This proceeding was originally commenced  by  the  filing  in
          September 1983, of a rent overcharge complaint by  the  tenant  in
          which the  tenant  stated  that  she  had  moved  to  the  subject
          apartment on July 15, 1983 pursuant to  a  one  year  lease  at  a
          rental of $350.00 per month.

               The owner was served with a copy of  the  complaint  and  was
          directed to submit a  complete  rental  history  for  the  subject
          apartment from the base date including copies of all leases.  In a 
          BG 410188 RO









          response filed on December 12, 1983, the owner stated that it  had
          agreed to reduce the rent from $350.00 per month  to  $313.57  per
          month.  On September 5, 1986, the owner advised  that  the  tenant
          had withdrawn her overcharge complaint and agreed  that  the  rent
          would be $374.50 effective October 1, 1985.

               On May 21, 1987, the tenant in response to  a  notice  stated
          that she does not agree  to  withdraw  her  overcharge  complaint.
          Previously on August 26, 1985, the tenant appeared in person at 10 
          Columbus Circle and advised that she had been coerced by the owner 
          into signing a withdrawal of her overcharge complaint in that  the
          owner would not sign her Section 8 application unless she withdrew 
          her overcharge complaint.

               In Order Number CDR 30,694,  the  Rent  Administrator  stated
          that the  tenant  had  not  withdrawn  her  overcharge  complaint,
          determined that due to the owner's failure to  submit  a  complete
          rental history, the owner  had  collected  a  rent  overcharge  of
          $1077.98 from July 15, 1983 through June 30, 1984, determined  the
          lawful stabilization rent was $232.00 effective July 15, 1983, and 
          directed the owner to refund the overcharge to  the  tenant.   The
          rent charged the tenant was listed as $313.57 during this period  
           the rent amount the owner stated it had reduced the  rent  to  in
          its December 12, 1983 response.

               In this petition, the owner contends in  substance  that  its
          failure to supply rent records was due to the settlement  it  made
          with the tenant, that the settlement should have been enforced and 
          the proceeding discontinued and that it made a refund  of  $782.39
          to the tenant.  In support of its contentions, the owner submitted 
          a copy of the tenant's affidavit dated July 23,  1985  withdrawing
          her overcharge complaint due to a settlement with the owner and  a
          copy of a cancelled check from the owner to the tenant dated  June
          24, 1986 in the amount of $782.39.  The owner  did  not  submit  a
          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 and  produce  them  to  the
          DHCR upon demand.  If the apartment was decontrolled from the Rent 
          Control  Law  after  June  30,  1974,  the  owner   must   provide
          satisfactory documentary  evidence  of  the  apartment's  date  of
          decontrol.

               In the instant case, the owner has not  provided  a  complete
          rental history as  mandated  by  Section  42A  although  given  an
          opportunity  to  do  so.   With  regard  to  the  July  23,   1985
          settlement, Section 11  of  the  former  Rent  Stabilization  Code
          provides that an agreement by the tenant to waive the  benefit  of
          any provision of the Rent Stabilization Law or Code shall be void. 
          Therefore, the tenant was not bound by  this  settlement.   It  is
          BG 410188 RO









          noted that the copy of the cancelled check submitted by the  owner
          was dated almost a year after the settlement affidavit and  it  is
          not possible to determine  if  this  check  was  for  any  of  the
          overcharge found by  the  Rent  Administrator.   Since  the  owner
          failed to raise this issue  before  the  Rent  Administrator,  the
          Commissioner  has   not   considered   this   claim   on   appeal.
          Accordingly,  the  Rent  Administrator's  order  establishing  the
          lawful  stabilization  rent  utilizing  the  Section  42A  default
          procedure and finding a rent overcharge was warranted.

               This order is issued without prejudice to the  owner's  right
          to commence a court action to recover the $782.39 if  that  amount
          represents a return of overcharges.  However,  given  the  owner's
          failure to timely raise this issue, the overcharge  award  ordered
          by the Rent Administrator will not be adjusted. 
               
               Because this determination concerns lawful rents only through 
          June 30, 1984, the owner is cautioned to adjust  subsequent  rents
          to  an  amount  no  greater  than  that  determined  by  the  Rent
          Administrator's 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 proceeding pursuant to  Article  78  of  the
          Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and enforced as a  judgment
          or not in excess of twenty percent per month of the overcharge 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



                                                                        
                                          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