BG 410282 RT
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. BG 410282 RT
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
Noel Hamilton, DOCKET NO. L 3112943 T
aka Darielle Keith,
OWNER: River Company
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 6, 1987, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on June 2, 1987, by the
Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, concerning the housing
accommodations known as 214 Riverside Drive, New York, New York,
Apartment No. 709, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that due to
a complete renovation of the subject building the initial rent was not
subject to a fair market rent appeal.
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 (hereafter RSC) contained herein are to the Code in
effect on April 30, 1987.
The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the provisions
of Section 26-513 of the Rent Stabilization Law (hereafter RSL).
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was
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 of a Fair Market
Rent Application (hereafter FMRA) by the tenant in March 1984. The
owner was served with a copy of the tenant's complaint. The owner
stated in substance that the building was completely renovated in 1974
and submitted a copy of a "Certificate of Reasonable Costs" dated
February 15, 1975 and amended July 15, 1975 which indicated that the
owner was in receipt of a tax abatement under Section J51-2.5 of the
Administrative Code of the City of New York.
In Order Number CDR 30,471, the Rent Administrator rejected the tenant's
FMRA because the initial rent of a dwelling unit in a building renovated
BG 410282 RT
under the J51-2.5 program is not challengeable by a FMRA.
In this petition, the tenant contends in substance that other apartment
rents were reduced and not disqualified under Section 2(i)(A)(1)(g)
specifically apartment 409; and that if the disqualification was due to
being the initial tenant that it was not applicable to the instant case
because there was a prior rent stabilized tenant.
In answer to the tenant's petition, the owner stated in substance that
the Rent Administrator's order was warranted; that the tenant in
apartment 409 had filed an overcharge proceeding and that other
apartments' FMRA's were similarly dismissed citing apartment 113.
The subject building was converted to cooperative ownership under a non-
eviction plan effective April 25, 1985. However the tenant herein chose
not to purchase the subject apartment. The apartment was last
registered with DHCR in 1990.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
Section 2(i)A(1)g of the former Rent Stabilization Code and Section
2521.1(J) of the current Rent Stabilization Code both provide in
pertinent part that the initial rent of a dwelling unit in a building
subject to the Rent Stabilization Law solely due to the owner's
participation in the J51-2.5 Tax Abatement Program (currently designated
Section 11-243) shall be the rent charged the initial rent stabilized
tenant . . . . and shall not be subject to a fair market rent appeal.
An examination of the record in this case discloses that the owner had
submitted in the proceeding below copies of the "Certificate of
Reasonable Costs" issued by the N.Y.C. Dept of Finance approving tax
abatements under Subsection "F" of Section J51-2.5 of the Administrative
Code of the City of New York issued February 14, 1975 (amended July 15,
1975) for renovations to the subject building at a final cost of
A review of the rental records for the subject building on file with
DHCR disclose that the subject building originally contained a total of
38 apartments of which 20 were rent-controlled per the 1972 Maximum
Base Rent Schedule established by the Office of Rent Control and that
all the rent controlled apartments contained more than 3 rooms. The
subject building's initial registration in 1984 indicates that the total
number of apartments was increased to 105 units, all rent stabilized
except for 2 exempt units and that the subject apartment contains only
In addition, an Order Determining Facts or Fixing Maximum Rent pursuant
to Section 36 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations was issued under
docket 2AR18740-2AR18844 on April 24, 1975 by the Office of Rent Control
which set a maximum rent of $480.00 for the subject apartment which
contained 3 rooms after renovations.
Therefore, the initial rent after renovations was a re-constructed rent
controlled rent and not an unchallengeable initial stabilized rent
pursuant to Section 2(i)(A)(1)(g) of the Code as the Rent
Administrator's order contends since the subject apartment was not under
BG 410282 RT
the jurisdiction of the RSL solely due to the receipt of J51-2.5 tax
abatements. Upon the vacating of the apartment by the rent controlled
tenant for whom the District Rent Administrator established the maximum
rent of $480.00 in April 1975, the apartment's initial stabilized rent
after vacancy decontrol was subject to a FMRA.
In the instant case, however, the tenant neither indicated the initial
rent challenged nor the vacancy rent in September 1976 when filing the
FMRA but did note on the FMRA form that the current rent in March 1984
Therefore, although the tenant was not precluded from challenging the
initial rent by Section 2(i)(A)(1)(g) of the RSC, the challenge is
dismissed because the rent even in 1984 would not have exceeded the fair
market rent calculated above the $480.00 maximum controlled rent
established by the Office of Rent Control in April 1975.
Accordingly, the Rent Administrator's order was warranted.
With regard to the tenant's contention that the order was based on the
misconception that the complainant was the initial tenant of the subject
apartment the Commissioner notes that the applicable sections of the
Code apply to the initial rent and are not dependent on whether the
complaining tenant is or is not the initial tenant.
Similarly, the Commissioner rejects the tenant's contention in citing
proceedings involving other apartments in the building, specifically
apartment 409, as not germane to the instant appeal since the proceeding
for Apartment 409 involved a complaint of rent overcharge and not a FMRA
- the subject of the instant proceeding.
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA