Adm. Rev. Docket No. BH710132RO
                                  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.: BH710132RO
                                                                           
                   ARTHUR T. MOTT,            
                                               DRO DOCKET NO.: (G)BB710044R
                                             
                                               TENANT: BRIAN SCHUMER
                                PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X                              




               ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW



            The above-named petitioner-owner timely filed a Petition for 
            Administrative Review against an order issued on July 22,1987, by 
            the Rent Administrator at 50 Clinton Street, Hempstead, New York, 
            concerning housing accommodations known as apartment number 322 at 
            21-31 Brewster Street, Glen Cove, New York, wherein the 
            Administrator determined the stabilized rent and directed the owner 
            to refund
            $ 300.00. to the tenant as a rent overcharge.  


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


            The issues in this appeal are as follows. Can the Commissioner take 
            cognizance of certain documentary evidence the petitioner has 
            submitted for the first time on appeal. If so, does that evidence 
            substantiate the fact that the landlord incurred $300.00 in legal 
            fees with respect to the tenant; and, if so, has the landlord 
            established his entitlement to have collected said sum from the 
            tenant as additional rent?


            The Commissioner is of the opinion that this Petition should be 
            denied.


            The Commissioner finds that he may not take cognizance of the 
            subject documentary evidence as the landlord failed to address the 
            issue of the legal fees below and has proffered no explanation, let 
            alone excuse, for his failure to address said issue below and/or 







          Adm. Rev. Docket No. BH710132RO


            submit the subject documents below.


            The Commissioner notes that if the subject documents were not beyond 
            the scope of review on appeal, the Petition would nevertheless be 
            denied as said documents do not substantiate $300.00. in legal fees 
            or support the landlord's implicit position that he was entitled to 
            assess the tenant as additional rent for said legal fees.


            The Petition was filed on the last date on which it would have been 
            timely, August 26, 1987. The subject documents were subsequently 
            submitted in a "Supplement" to the Petition which was received by 
            the Division on September 3, 1987. The documents appear to consist 
            of five separate statements from Stanford A. Schwartz, Esq. to the 
            petitioner for sums due on account of legal services and/or 
            disbursements. A synopsis of these statements follows:



                                      DATE ON WHICH                   
            DATE OF                   ALLEGED SERVICES
            STATEMENT                 WERE PERFORMED         AMOUNT BILLED     

            July 2, 1986              June 19, 1986            $ 70.00.

            November 26, 1986         September 1, 1986          25.00.

            January 10, 1987          October [no date]
                                          1986                   70.00.

            March 10, 1987            February 6, 1987           none
                                                                 stated

            July 20, 1987             June 30, 1987              not
                                                                 specified

                                                                               

            TOTAL STATED AND CLEARLY SPECIFIED BILLINGS:        $165.00.


            The Commissioner notes that the tenant's complaint, which was served 
            on the landlord on March 11, 1987, had annexed to it, as Exhibit A, 
            what appears to be the tenant' rent bill dated February 13, 1987. 
            That bill contains an entry dated November 21, 1986 denoted "Legal 
            Fee"   for $150.00. and an entry dated January 28, 1987 likewise 
            denoted "Legal Fee" for $150.00. These two items represent the 
            $300.00. in legal fees which the Administrator directed the landlord 
            to refund. The Commissioner points out that the landlord's March 13, 
            1987 answer to the complaint makes no mention of this $300.00. and 
            that those portions of the tenant's lease and the prior tenant's 
            lease which the landlord annexed to his answer contains no language 
            which states that legal fees may be collected as additional rent.

            The Commissioner further notes that neither below nor on appeal has 
            the landlord asserted, let alone proven, that the legal fees 



          Adm. Rev. Docket No. BH710132RO


            collected were imposed on the tenant by a court order.


            Moreover, the Commissioner finds that two of the five bills 
            submitted are for legal services that post date the last entry in 
            the tenant's rent bill. Therefore, at the most, the bills submitted 
            could only be construed as substantiating $165.00. of the $300.00. 
            in question. But even as to that $165.00., the landlord never 
            established his entitlement to reimbursement of it either by virtue 
            of a provision in any lease or court order.


            THEREFORE, pursuant to all of the applicable statutes and 
            regulations, it is


            ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same hereby is denied; and 
            that the Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.


            ISSUED:




                                                                    
                                            JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                            Deputy Commissioner














            1A2D3D3BH710132.RO    




    

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