BH110274RO
                             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. BH110274RO

                                          :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
           Sennen Chow,                      DOCKET NO. Q002565R
                                            
                                             TENANT: Rasheed Rojan            
              
                            PETITIONER    : 
      ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


      On August 27, 1987, the above-named owner filed a petition for 
      administrative review of an order issued on August 14, 1987 by a 
      District  Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known 
      as 32-34 48th Street, Astoria, New York, Apartment No. 1L, wherein the 
      Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the tenant.

      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 commenced on May 24, 1985 by the filing of an  
      overcharge complaint.  In his complaint the tenant stated that he took 
      occupancy of the subject apartment without a lease.  The tenant provided 
      a rental history for his period of occupancy and supplied the 
      Administrator with copies of cancelled checks or money orders to 
      substantiate his version of the rental history.

      The owner's answer to the tenant's complaint alleged, among other 
      things, a different version of the rent history.  Included with the 
      answer was a lease for ther period of October 1, 1983 to September 30, 
      1984 which stated that the rent for this period was $245.00.  
      Subsequently, the owner submitted a second copy of a lease for the same 
      period stating that the rent was $240.00.

      The tenant replied to the owner's answer and stated that he had no lease 
      for the period in question, had never paid $240.00 per month rent and 
      was in fact paying $220.00 per month.

      In the order here under review, the Administrator determined that the 
      rent In effect on April 1, 1984 was the registered rent of $220.00.  By 
      using $220.00 per month as the Initial Legal Registered Rent as opposed 
      to $240.00 or $245.00 as alleged by the owner, the Administrator 
      determined the total overcharges to be $589.71 including interest on 
      overcharges occurring after April 1, 1984.  The lawful stabilization 
      rent for the period of May 1, 1986 to April 30, 1987 was established as 
      $267.93.
      In the petition for administrative review, the owner reasserts that his 
      version of rent history is correct and is supported by the weight of the 







          BH110274RO

      evidence.  Further, the owner asserts that on May 1, 1986 be began to 
      bill the tenant at a monthly rental of $290.60 but the tenant only paid 
      $281.00.  The owner alleged that he should be credited for this 
      underpayment by the tenant.

      The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition for administrative 
      review should be denied.

      The Commissioner finds that the evidence supports the tenant-supplied 
      version of the rental history and that the Administrator correctly 
      relied on that rental history in the computations determining the lawful 
      stabilization rent and the overcharges.  The tenant has submitted clear 
      evidence in the form of copies of cancelled checks and money orders to 
      substantiate the amount of $220.00 as the rental figure for April 1, 
      1984.  In addition, in the owner's initial registration filed with DHCR, 
      the owner stated that the rental amount for the subject apartment for 
      April 1, 1984 was $220.00.  On the other hand, the evidence submitted by 
      the owner is tenuous and conflicting.  The owner summits copies of two 
      separate leases for the period of October 1, 1983 to September 30, 1984.  
      These leases are for different rental amounts ($240.00 and $245.00) and 
      were allegedly executed on different days (September 1, 1983 and 
      September 6, 1983).  Accordingly, these lease copies carry little weight 
      or credibility.

      Further, the owner's assertion that the tenant underpaid his rent 
      beginning May 1, 1986 does not warrant a modification of the 
      Administrator's order.  Both the amount billed and the amount paid were 
      in excess of the lawful stabilization rent, and the Administrator 
      correctly used the rent actually paid in the calculations.

      Since, the owner raises no other issues of law or fact which would 
      warrant reversal or modification of the Administrator's order, that 
      order under Docket No. Q002565R must be affirmed.

      The owner is directed to reflect the findings and determinations made in 
      this order on all future registration statements, including those for 
      the current year if not already filed, citing this order as the basis 
      for the change.  Registration statements already on file, however, 
      should not be amended to reflect the findings and determinations made in 
      this order.  The owner is further directed to adjust subsequent rents to 
      an amount no greater than that determined by this order plus any lawful 
      increases.

      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 not in excess of 
      twenty percent per month of the overcharge may be offset against any 
      rent thereafter due the owner.

      THEREFORE, in accordance with 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.



          BH110274RO

      ISSUED:



                                                                    
                                      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