BI 410174 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. BI 410174 Ro
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
Martin Baumrind, DOCKET NO. L 3114583 R
CDR 31,187
TENANT: Ted Marks
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 15, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order issued on August 25, 1987, by
the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York,
concerning the housing accommodations known as 211 East 10th Street,
New York, New York, Apartment No. 7 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 Section 42A 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 by the filing in March 1984 of
a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant.
There is no evidence in the file to indicate that the owner submitted a
timely response to the tenant's complaint.
In Order Number CDR 31,187, the Rent Administrator determined that due
to the owner's failure to submit a complete rental history, the owner
BI 410174 RO
had collected a rent overcharge of $3,853.09 including interest on that
portion of the overcharge occurring on and after April 1, 1984.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the requested
rental history had been submitted to the Rent Administrator. The owner
submitted with its petition a rental history form stating that July 1,
1979 was the base date for the subject apartment and listing 2 prior
tenants (Engler and Easton); a bill for a refrigerator and stove dated
May 20, 1981 and a rent ledger for July - December 1979 indicating that
no rent was collected for the apartment from July through October 1979
and that a rental of $315 was collected for November and December 1979.
In answer to the owner's petition, the tenant stated in substance that
the petition should be denied because the rental history is incomplete
and no new appliances were installed. The tenant submitted a notarized
statement signed by prior tenant (Hilary Easton) attesting to the fact
that no new appliances were installed during her tenancy September 1980
through September 1981 nor did she see any new appliances during
subsequent visits to the apartment after 1981.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
Section 42A of the Rent Stabilization Code requires that an owner retain
complete records for each stabilized apartment in effect from June 30,
1974 to date 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 and submit a rental history from that date.
The record in this case does not indicate that the owner submitted an
answer in the proceeding before the Rent Administrator as claimed on
appeal. Moreover, the owner's submission on appeal contained no actual
rental documentation of the base date and subsequent rental history, and
no documentation of the cost of new equipment.
Accordingly, the Rent Administrator's order establishing the lawful
stabilization rent utilizing the Section 42A default procedure and
finding a rent overcharge was warranted.
Because this determination concerns lawful rents only through
July 14, 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 in the same manner 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 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.
BI 410174 RO
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
