ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BL 410274 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. BL 410274 RO
: DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET NO.
012893
J. K. MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
Tenant: Frank Russo
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 29, 1987, the above named owner filed a petition
for administrative review of an order issued on November 24, 1987
by a District Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodation known as Apartment 6-C, 4 South Pinehurst Avenue,
New York, New York.
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.
This proceeding was commenced by the tenant's filing an
objection to the 1984 rent registration, dated July 30, 1984.
The subject tenant took occupancy pursuant to a three-year
lease commencing on July 1, 1983 and expiring on June 30, 1984 at
a monthly rent of $500.00.
On January 31, 1985 the Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (D.H.C.R.) mailed to the owner a copy of the tenant's
objection, and an answer form requesting that the owner submit
copies of all leases for the subject apartment, from the base rent
date to the date the complainant first took occupancy.
On October 8, 1985 D.H.C.R. mailed to the owner a "Final
Notice" requesting that the owner submit copies of all leases from
April 1, 1980 to the present. The notice warned the owner that
failure to comply with D.H.C.R.'s request for a complete rental
history could result in the legal rent being calculated "by using
the last maximum base rent in effect when subject apartment was
decontrolled from the City Rent control Laws and came under the
Rent Stabilization Laws." A similar notice was sent on October
11, 1985.
On December 4, 1985 the owner submitted leases for the
subject apartment from June 13, 1981 to June 30, 1984. The
owner's answer stated that: "We took over the building in March
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BL 410274 RO
1984. The first lease in our posession is as of 7/1981, for
which we enclosed copies."
On May 9, 1986 D.H.C.R. mailed to the owner a "Request For
Additional Information/Evidence" requesting that the owner submit
leases or rent ledgers for the subject apartment from April 1,
1980 to June 30, 1981, within twenty days from the date of mailing
of this notice.
The owner's response, filed on May 15, 1986, stated that "as
previously written, this information was not given to us when we
purchased the building in March, 1984."
In the order reviewed herein, the Administrator found that
the owner had failed to submit a complete rental history and that
the tenant filed a timely objection to the 1984 registration, and
he determined that the legal regulated rent would be established
by using D.H.C.R.'s default procedure. The Administrator computed
total overcharges in the amount of $9,416.69, including excess
security and accrued interest from April 1, 1984.
In this petition, the owner questions the finding that the
tenant's objection was filed timely, because the owner states, it
was not notified of the tenant's objection until 1985, and, it
further states, it has not been provided with a date-stamped copy
of the tenant's objection, showing when D.H.C.R. received the
complaint. The owner believes that the objection was not filed
timely, and that the initial legal regulated rent charged by the
owner was proper. Also, the owner contends that it provided
D.H.C.R. with a complete rental history of the subject apartment.
In the tenant's answer to the owner's petition, the tenant
asserts that his objection to the 1984 rent registration was filed
timely, and that he should receive treble damages from the amount
he was overcharged by the owner.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the owner admits to receiving the
tenant's objection in 1985. The record shows that the owner was
given a full opportunity to respond to any issues arising out of
the tenant's complaint.
As to the issue of whether the tenant timely filed the
objection to the 1984 rent registration, the Commissioner notes
that the owner did not submit this issue to the Administrator. As
this issue is submitted for the first time upon administrative
review and the owner offered no explanation as to why this issue
was not presented to the Administrator, it is outside the scope of
the Commissioner's review in this proceeding. Accordingly, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the District Rent
Administrator's finding that the tenant's objection to the 1984
rent registration was filed timely should not be disturbed.
The Commissioner finds that the owner did not submit a
complete rental history to the Administrator. The owner's
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BL 410274 RO
assertion that a complete rental history was submitted to the
Administrator is contradicted by the owner's statements to the
Administrator that it did not have the required rental history in
its possession. The Commissioner notes that the record does not
include any leases submitted by the owner prior to June 1981.
The Commissioner notes that as the tenant did not file a
petition for administrative review pertaining to the issue of
treble damages for the amount the tenant was being overcharged,
that issue is not subject to review by the Commissioner in this
proceeding.
Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
Administrator's order should be affirmed.
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 District Rent 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
and penalties; 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, and the tenant has credited no such amounts, the
tenant may file and enforce a certified copy of this order as a
judgment for the amount of $9,416.69 against the owner, J. K.
Management Corporation.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
