STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. BD 110052-RO
DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
P.M.T.X. REALTY CORP., DOCKET NO. K 3105475-R
------------------------------------X TENANT: MILDRED ROBINSON
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 6, 1987, the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on March 11, 1987 by a District
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 712
Crown Street, Apartment C15, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Administrator
determined that a rent overcharge occurred.
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 petition for review.
The proceeding was commenced on March 28, 1984 upon the filing of a
complaint of rent overcharge by the tenant with the former New York City
Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB). The tenant stated that her lease
included no rental history, and she requested a general rent review from
the base date. She stated that she moved into the subject apartment on
May 15, 1978.
On April 1, 1984, responsibility for the administration of rent
stabilization in New York City was transferred to the New York State
Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).
On March 31, 1986, DHCR received the owner's submissions. Included in
these submissions were the Owner's Report of Vacancy Decontrol (R-42) and
complete copies of all leases from the alleged base date. The submissions
indicated that the complainant-tenant was the first stabilized tenant in
May of 1978.
In the order here under review, the Rent Administrator determined that
the owner had defaulted in its obligation to provide a complete rental
history. The lawful stabilization rent was established at $287.26 for the
lease of October 1, 1985 through September 30, 1986. The overcharges were
determined to be $3,438.17 including interest on overcharges occurring
after April 1, 1984 and excess security through September 30, 1986.
In its petition for administrative review, the owner alleges that since
this tenant was the first stabilized tenant, the Administrator erred in
treating this proceeding as a complaint of overcharge. The owner asserts
DOCKET NUMBER: BD 110052-R0
that the Administrator should have established the lawful rent based on a
comparability study and treated this proceeding as a fair market rent
Subsequently, a separate proceeding under Docket No. FB 210001-HM was
instituted by the Enforcement Unit of DHCR. The owner was charged with
engaging in evasive practices, including the submission of falsified
documents. In a Stipulation of Settlement in that proceeding, the owners
acknowledged that they had evaded the rent laws.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that this
petition should be denied.
The one allegation raised by the owner in the petition for review has been
rendered moot by the owner's acknowledged evasive practices. The
Commissioner will not consider the R-42 submitted by the owner.
Accordingly, the owner failed to establish that the complainant-tenant was
the first stabilized tenant, and the Administrator correctly treated this
proceeding as an overcharge and not as a fair market rent appeal. Since
the owner raises no other issues of law or fact in its petition for
review, the Commissioner must deny this petition for review.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 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; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the owner shall immediately refund to the tenant all
amounts not yet refunded representing overcharges, interest and excess
security; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that if the owner has refunded no such amounts upon the
expiration of the period for seeking judicial review of this order
pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, the tenant may
recover such amounts by deducting them from the rent due to the owner. If
after such period, the owner has refunded no such amounts and the tenant
has not made any such deductions from her rent as an offset, then the
tenant may file and enforce a certified copy of this order as a judgment
for the amount of $3,438.17 against the owner.