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. BH110274RO
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
Sennen Chow, DOCKET NO. Q002565R
TENANT: Rasheed Rojan
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
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
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
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
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA