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
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
DOCKET NO: BK410168RO
Blare Management Corp., D.R.O. DOCKET NO:CDR31638
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On November 13, 1987, the above-named owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on October 23, 1987
by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York
concerning the housing accommodation known as 720 Fort Washington
Avenue, apartment 5V, New York, New York wherein the
Administrator granted the tenant's Fair Market Rest Appeal and
directed the prior and current owners to refund excess rent of
$8148.42 inclusive of excess security.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the petition for review.
On September 19, 1983, the tenants commenced this proceeding by
filing a Fair Market Rent Appeal. The tenants stated that they
had moved into the subject apartment on June 1, 1979 pursuant to
a two year lease terminating on May 31, 1981 at a rent of $475.00
and that the rent of the prior tenant had been $200.00. The
tenants alleged that similar apartments in nearby buildings had
A copy of the complaint was sent to the prior owner (Fort Tryon
On November 4, 1983, the prior owner responded by submitting a
copy of the 1978/79 MBR for the subject apartment; a list of
apartments in the "U", "V", and "T" lines to be used for
Docket No. BK410168RO - 2 -
comparability as well as a copy of CAB opinion T/A 4215 in which
the fair market rent for Apartment 3T, allegedly a smaller
apartment than the subject apartment, had been established.
On June 10,1987 a summary notice, advising which 4 room
apartments were to be considered for comparability, was sent to
the prior owner.
On July 1, 1987, a copy of the complaint along with answer forms
and a copy of the prior owner's answer was served on the
On July 9, 1987, the current owner requested a 30 day extension
to be able to review the MBR folder at the DHCR office. The
owner was granted a 30 day extension to August 9, 1987.
On August 21, 1987, a copy of the summary notice was sent to the
On August 28, 1987, the petitioner replied to the summary
notice, stating that having not yet had access to the MBR files
at the DHCR office, it was unable to comment on the substance of
the summary notice.
On October 23, 1987, the Administrator issued the order here
under review, granting the Fair Market Rent Appeal, finding the
Fair Market Rent to be $407.19 and directing the prior owner to
refund $6,792.27 and the current owner $1,356.15 in excess rent.
In its appeal, the current owner contends that failure of the
DHCR to provide access to public records had deprived it of the
ability to give a complete answer and therefore, requests that
the proceeding be remanded to provide such an opportunity.
The tenant contends that 1) the Administrator's determination is
the result of careful evaluation of the evidence submitted by the
parties and its finding is amply documented and justified; 2) the
petition may be nothing more than a delaying tactic while the
cooperative conversion of the subject building goes forward. The
tenant requests that a typographical error on page 3 of the order
which misstates the rent as $475.00 be corrected to read $407.19
and further requests that the ordered refunds be made a
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
Although the petitioner contends that it has been prejudiced, a
review of the instant record reveals that the petitioner has been
afforded all rights consistent with due process. The owner was
kept apprised of the procedures and the data to be employed in
determining the Fair Market Rent. Specifically, a complete copy
Docket No. BK410168RO - 3 -
of the answer submitted by the prior owner, including the 1978-
1979 Notice of Maximum Base Rent and Maximum Collectible Rent,
and a list of comparable apartments, were sent to the current
owner. The petitioner neither disputed the information provided
nor made any comment at all. Although afforded the opportunity
to submit its own comparability data, the petitioner neglected to
do so. The Petitioner was sent a summary notice which advised it
of the 1978 Maximum rent and the rental data which would be used
to determine the Fair Market Rent. Although afforded the
opportunity to comment, the petitioner did not do so. The
Commissioner notes that the petitioner had in its possession all
the meaningful material upon which the Fair Market Rent was based
but chose not to make any substantive comment. Accordingly, the
Commissioner finds that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate
that it has been prejudiced.
With respect to the tenant's contentions, the Commissioner finds
and hereby corrects a typographical error on page 3, paragraph 4,
line 2 to now read "any rent paid to them by the tenant in excess
of $407.19 per month".
Since the Code makes no provision for the conversion of the
excess rent refund due to a judgment, the Administrator's
direction with respect to the refund remains unchanged.
Therefore, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
Ordered that this petition be and the same hereby is, denied and
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is
affirmed as modified in accordance with this order and opinion.
Joseph A. D'Agosta