BL410240RO
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. BL410240RO
ROMFORD REALTY CO. : DRO DOCKET NO. L3117237R/
CDR 31,925
TENANT: KAMIAR TORBATI
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 23, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
November 23, 1987 , by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations
known as 303 East 83rd Street, New York, Apartment No. 31D, wherein
the Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the
tenant.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was
warranted.
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 originally commenced by the filing on
March 13, 1984 of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant.
The tenant asserted that he had taken occupancy of the subject
accommodation in September 1978 pursuant to a two year vacancy
lease at a monthly rent of $675.00. The tenant further asserted
that the owner had compelled the tenant to execute a new lease with
a 25% increase six months before the termination date of the then-
existing lease.
In answer to the complaint, the owner provided a rent history
chart from October 1, 1979 and included a copy of Conciliation and
Appeals Board (CAB) Opinion Number 14,566 as Amended to prove the
established base rent.
Subsequent thereto, the owner submitted a copy of a "so
ordered" stipulation between the owner and a sub-tenant which was
executed on April 5, 1984. Among the provisions agreed to was the
cessation of the complainant's lease rights to the subject apartment
and the execution of a new prime lease backdated to September 1,
1983 for the subtenant.
In response to a DHCR request for additional information, the
tenant stated that he had vacated the subject apartment in May 1983
BL410240RO
and had moved to another apartment in the building . The tenant
submitted proof of rent paid, including cancelled checks and rent
statements issued by the owner, which indicated that the tenant had
paid rent for apartment 31D through February 28, 1984.
In the order here under review, the Administrator determined
that the lawful stabilized rent as of February 28,1984 is $932.97
plus a $14.19 surcharge and directed the owner to refund an
overcharge of $2993.58.
In its appeal, the owner contends that the Administrator's
order should be revoked for the following reasons:
1) the order incorrectly determined that the Civil Court
settlement was not pertinent to the proceeding;
2) the complainant vacated the subject apartment on July 1,
1982, there was no rent charged to the complainant for the subject
apartment thereafter and therefore, there can be no overcharge for
the complainant after that date;
3) the "so ordered" stipulation is binding on all subsequent
tenants.
The tenant did not respond to the petition.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
denied.
Review of the record discloses that the owner has not
substantiated its contention that the complainant vacated the
subject apartment in July 1982. Moreover, the record reveals that
the complainant paid and the owner accepted rent for the subject
premises through February 28, 1984. Accordingly, the Administrator
did not err in finding an overcharge through that date.
The Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator was correct
in determining that the court-ordered stipulation of settlement is
not germane to the instant proceeding as the stipulated rent was an
agreement between the owner and the sub-tenant. Moreover, since the
complainant was not represented by counsel, pursuant to Section
2520.13,the agreement is not binding upon the complainant. Lastly,
since the stipulation establishes the agreed upon rent only between
the subtenant and the owner and does not establish the legal
stabilization rent, the rent established therein is binding only on
the owner and the subtenant.
The record indicates that the subject accommodations are no
longer subject to the Rent Stabilization Law because its 421-a
benefits have expired.
The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that
the owner collected overcharges of $2,993.58. This Order may, upon
expiration of the period for seeking review of this Order and
Opinion pursuant to Article Seventy-eight of the Civil Practice Law
and Rules, be filed and enforced as a judgment. Where the tenant
files this Order as a judgment, the County Clerk may add to the
overcharge, interest at the rate payable on a judgment pursuant to
section 5004 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules from the issuance
date of the Rent Administrator's order to the issuance date of the
Commissioner's Order.
BL410240RO
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of 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.
ISSUED
LULA M. ANDERSON
Deputy Commissioner
|
