OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION 
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433


          APPEAL OF                               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                  DOCKET NO: BK410168RO
               Blare Management Corp.,            D.R.O. DOCKET NO:CDR31638
          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
          lower rents.

          A copy of the complaint was sent to the prior owner  (Fort  Tryon
          Management Co.).

          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
          petitioner herein.

          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
                                             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