BH 610122 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. BH 610122 RO
: DRO DOCKET NO. 45409
WEINREB MANAGEMENT TENANT: MITCHELL UDOFF
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 25, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on July
23, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York,
New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 3950
Blackstone Avenue, Bronx, New York, Apartment No. 4U, 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 issue raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was originally commenced in September, 1984,
by the filing of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant herein
who first moved to the subject apartment on July 16, 1984.
In answer to the complaint the owner submitted a rental
history from October 1, 1979. On April 23, 1987, the owner was
directed to submit proof that the prior tenant had occupied the
subject apartment prior to July 1, 1975. The owner failed to
submit any rental history prior to October 1, 1979. On July 13,
1987, a DHCR staff member telephoned the owner's agent and was
informed that said agent had no information as to when the prior
tenant initially took occupancy of the subject apartment.
In Order Number 45409, the Rent Administrator determined that
the tenant had been overcharged in the amount of $4062.59
including interest. In such order, the owner was allowed a 5%
vacancy increase pursuant to Guideline 15 effective July 16, 1984
- the date of initial occupancy of the subject apartment by the
tenant herein.
BH 610122 RO
In this petition, the owner alleges in substance that it was
entitled to a 10% vacancy allowance pursuant to Guideline 15.
The owner submitted no evidence in support of this contention.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be denied.
Pursuant to Guideline 15, in effect when the tenant herein
took occupancy on July 16, 1984, the vacancy allowances are as
follows:
1) 0% where vacancy allowances totalling 15% or more have been
charged pursuant to provisions governing new tenancies commencing
on or after July 1, 1979.
2) 5% where vacancy allowances totalling more than 0% but less
than 15% have been charged pursuant to provisions governing new
tenancies commencing on or after July 1, 1979.
3) 10% where vacancy allowances were last charged pursuant to
provisions governing new tenancies commencing July 1, 1975 through
June 30, 1979.
4) 15% where no vacancy allowances have ben charged pursuant to
provisions governing new tenancies commencing on or after July 1,
1975.
In the instant case, the owner has submitted no rental
history for any period prior to October 1, 1979 although directed
to do so in the proceeding before the Rent Administrator. In
addition, the lease commencing October 1, 1979 for the prior
tenant does not indicate whether said lease was a renewal or a
vacancy lease. Accordingly, the owner has not established that
it is entitled to a vacancy allowance of more than 5% pursuant to
Guideline 15. Therefore the Rent Administrator's order was
warranted.
Because this determination concerns lawful rents only
through July 31, 1987, 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 thereof may be offset
against any rent thereafter due the owner.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
BH 610122 RO
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
|
