OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION 
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433


          APPEAL OF                               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                  DOCKET NO. BD 510121 RO
               Placid    Equities    Corp.,                DISTRICT    RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S    DOCKET
                                                  NO. U 3123049 R
                                                  TENANT:   Elba Castro



          On April 1, 1987, the above-named  owner  filed  a  petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on March 13, 1987  by  a
          District Rent Administrator concerning the housing  accommodation
          known as Apartment 6I, 286 Fort Washington Avenue, New York,  New
          York wherein the Administrator determined that an overcharge  had

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record  and
          has carefully considered that portion of the record  relevant  to
          the issues raised in the petition for review.

          This proceeding was commenced  on  February  22,  1984  upon  the
          filing of a general complaint of rent overcharge by the tenant.

          On July 31, 1986, the owner submitted  a  letter  signed  by  the
          tenant and notarized which stated that the rent  she  was  paying
          was "legal and fair" and she wished to  withdraw  her  overcharge

          On  September  26,  1986,  the  Administrator  issued  an   order
          terminating the proceeding based upon the withdrawal and apparent 
          settlement between the parties.

          On October 27, 1986, the Administrator received a letter from the 
          tenant requesting that the order of September 26, 1986 be revoked 
          and contending that the withdrawal  letter  was  a  forgery.   In
          Docket No. BD510121RO         - 2 -

          addition, the tenant contended that, if the case is reopened,  no
          subsequent submissions by the owner should be accepted by the 
          Administrator and the owner had already defaulted by  failing  to
          submit  a  lease  history  prior   to   the   issuance   of   the

          Administrator's order of September 26, 1986.

          On November 12,  1986,  the  Administrator  sent  notice  to  the
          parties of  a  proceeding  to  modify  or  revoke  the  order  of
          September 26,  1986  and  afforded  the  parties  seven  days  to

          On November 20, 1986, the Administrator issued an order  revoking
          the order of September 26, 1986.

          On December 11, 1986,  the  Division  of  Housing  and  Community
          Renewal (DHCR) was notified for the first time by the tenant that 
          a  change  of  ownership  had  occurred.   The  new  owner,   the
          petitioner herein, was then served in this proceeding.

          In its answer, the owner alleged that the letter of withdrawal by 
          the tenant was not a forgery and the proceeding should  not  have
          been reopened.  In addition, it is assert d  by  the  petitioner-
          owner that it was  never  afforded  an  adequate  opportunity  to
          respond to the proposed revocation.  Finally, the owner responded 
          to the merits of the proceeding and alleged  that  no  overcharge
          occurred.  The owner alleged that  the  first  stabilized  tenant
          took occupancy on April 1, 1978 under a two-year  lease.   It  is
          alleged  that  all  subsequent   rental   amounts   were   within
          permissible guidelines.  The owner submitted a  rent  ledger  for
          July 1979  to  document  the  rent  paid  by  the  alleged  first
          stabilized tenant and lease renewal offer sheets to document  the
          rental history of the current tenant.  The owner also submitted a 
          copy of a Landlord's Report of Statutory Decontrol  (R-42)  filed
          September 28, 1983 indicating  that  the  subject  apartment  was
          decontrolled "prior to December 1, 1982."

          The tenant replied to the owner's answer.   The  tenant  asserts,
          among other things, that the Administrator should consider treble 
          damages.   Further,  she  repeats  her   contentions   that   the
          withdrawal letter was a forgery and that,  on  reprocessing,  the
          Administrator should not accept the owner's submissions.

          In the order here under review, the Administrator determined that 
          the issue of the tenant's withdrawal letter was moot because  the
          order of termination issued on  September  26,  1986  was  issued
          without  prejudice  to  the  tenant's  right  to  reinstate   the
          proceeding.  Further,  the  Administrator  found  the  owner  had
          failed to produce  a  complete  rental  history.   Employing  the
          court-authorized default formula, the  Administrator  established
          the lawful stabilization rent at $326.50 for the lease period  of
          November 1, 1986 through October 31, 1988.  The total overcharges 

          Docket No. BD510121RO         - 3 -

          were determined  to  be  $4,075.88  through  February  28,  1987,
          including interest on post-April 1, 1984 overcharges  and  excess

          In its petition for administrative  review,  the  owner  requests
          reversal of the Administrator's order.  The  owner  alleges  that
          the alleged withdrawal letter is not a  moot  issue  because  the
          letter also stated that the rents were "both legal and fair"  and
          that the Administrator's order of September 26, 1986  was  issued

          without prejudice  to  the  tenant's  right  to  file  overcharge
          complaints involving future overcharges only.  Further, the owner 
          alleges that  the  Administrator's  order  of  revocation  issued
          November 20,  1986  was  made  without  adequate  notice  to  the
          petitioner-owner who did not  have  an  adequate  opportunity  to
          respond.  It is alleged that the  petitioner-owner  and  not  the
          prior owner submitted the withdrawal letter of  July  1986  along
          with notice to the agency that ownership had  changed.   Finally,
          the owner alleges that, even if the merits of the case are to  be
          addressed, no  overcharge  occurred.   It  alleges  that  it  had
          established the base date  of  April  1,  1978  and  submitted  a
          complete rental history from that date.

          In her answer to the petition for review, the tenant alleges that 
          she was never served  a  copy  of  the  petition  by  the  owner.
          Further, she repeats the arguments made below.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied. 

          First, the tenant's allegation that the alleged  failure  of  the
          owner to serve a copy of the petition for review upon the  tenant
          should result in the dismissal of the petition is without  merit.
          The evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that  the  tenant
          actually received the petition for review  as  indicated  by  her
          thorough and point-by-point answer.  Clearly, all of the tenant's 
          due process rights were protected.

          Second, the Administrator correctly reopened the proceeding.   As
          stated by the Administrator,  the  decision  to  do  so  was  not
          dependent on the issue of whether the  withdrawal  letter  was  a
          forgery.  A tenant's withdrawal of a complaint is revocable until 
          the time for filing a petition  for  review  has  expired.   DHCR
          received notice from the tenant on October 27,  1986,  which  was
          within the time  allowed  the  tenant  to  revoke  a  withdrawal.
          Therefore, the revocation of the withdrawal was  timely  and  the
          Administrator correctly reopened the petition.  

          Docket No.BD510121RO          - 4 -

          Third, the Commissioner is of the opinion that all of the owner's 
          due process rights were protected.   The  owner  claims  that  it
          acquired the subject apartment in January 1986 and that  it,  not
          the prior owner, submitted the  tenant's  withdrawal  letter  and
          notified the agency of the change of ownership in August of 1986. 
          Accordingly, the owner alleges that it and not  the  prior  owner
          should have been notified of the proposed revocation of the order 
          of September 26, 1986.  The  evidence  in  the  record  does  not
          support this claim.  There is nothing in the  record  to  show  a
          change of ownership before November 20, 1986, the date  that  the
          Administrator's  order of September 26, 1986 was revoked.  It  is
          noted that the DHCR-registered owner on April 1, 1986 was not the 
          petitioner but the prior owner.  Further, the tenant submitted  a
          letter entitled "Notice to All Tenants" which advised the  tenant
          of  the  change  of   ownership,   dated   November   26,   1986.

          Accordingly, no due process violations occurred  and  the  proper
          parties were served at each point of the  proceeding.   Moreover,
          the owner has failed  to  establish  upon  administrative  review
          that reopening was not warranted.

          Finally,  the  Administrator   correctly   considered   all   the
          submissions in the record including those of the petitioner-owner 
          submitted after the order of September 26, 1986  was  revoked  on
          November 20, 1986.   

          Therefore, the Commissioner finds that all parties'  due  process
          rights were fully protected.  Accordingly, the merits of the case 
          will be considered.

          The  Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  Administrator
          correctly determined that the owner was in default in  this  case
          by failing to supply a complete rental history.

          This Commissioner finds that the owner's allegation that  it  had
          adequately established the base date  of  April  1,  1978  to  be
          without merit.  The R-42 form submitted by the owner in this case 
          merely stated that the subject apartment was decontrolled  "prior
          to December 1, 1982."  DHCR records  indicate  that  the  Maximum
          Base Rent Schedule submitted by a prior owner  effective  January
          1, 1972 indicated that fifty-one of the sixty-one  apartments  in
          the subje t  building  were  rent-controlled.   Among  the  rent-
          controlled apartments listed was  Apartment  6I.   In  1974  only
          twenty-eight  of  the  sixty-one  units  were  listed  as   rent-
          controlled.  Apartment 6I was not among these.  In 1976 and  1977
          twenty apartments were listed and for January 1. 1978 only twelve 
          apartments  were  listed.   None  of  these  schedules   included
          Apartment 6I.  Clearly, the subject  apartment  was  decontrolled
          well before the owner-alleged decontrol date of  April  1,  1978.
          Accordingly, the owner failed in  its  obligation  to  adequately
          establish the date of decontrol and clearly failed  to  supply  a
          complete rental history.

          Docket BD510121RO             - 5 -

          Therefore, the Administrator correctly found that the  owner  was
          in default and properly used the court authorized default formula 
          in  determining  the  overcharges  and  establishing  the  lawful
          stabilization rent.  

          The Commissioner notes that, in the absence  of  a  petition  for
          administrative review filed by the tenant, the  issue  of  treble
          damages will not be considered.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, is 

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  denied,
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed; and it is 

          FURTHER ORDERED, that  the  owner  Placid  Equities  Corp.  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 Placid Equities Corp. has  not
          yet refunded the stated 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  at  a
          rate not in excess of twenty percent of the amount to be refunded 
          for each month's rent.  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 $4,075.88 against Placid Equities Corp.  


                                             Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                             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