CA 210147 RO
                                  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.: CA 210147 RO

                                                 DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
               Ronald J. and Evelyn Mc Bride,    DOCKET NO.: K-3104911 RT

                                                 TENANT:   Marsha   Lazarus
                                   PETITIONER    
          ------------------------------------X 


            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          

          On January 29, 1988, the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          December 31,  1987,  by  the  Rent  Administrator,  Gertz  Plaza,
          Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          888 Carroll Street, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. 2,  wherein
          the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had  overcharged
          the tenant.

          The Administrative Appeal is being  determined  pursuant  to  the
          provisions of Section 2526.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

          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  in  March
          1984 of a rent  overcharge  complaint  and  a  fair  market  rent
          adjustment application by the tenant.  The tenant stated that she 
          first moved  to  the  subject  apartment  in  February  1980  and
          submitted a rental history from that date.

          In  answer  to  the  tenant's  complaint,  the  owner  stated  in
          substance that it agreed with the rental history submitted by the 
          tenant, that the subject premises was never rent  controlled  and
          that no rent overcharge had occurred. 
          In Order Number CDR 32,251,  the  Rent  Administrator  determined
          that, due to the owner's failure  to  submit  a  complete  rental
          history, the  tenant  had  been  overcharged  in  the  amount  of
          $4810.18 and directed the owner to refund such overcharge to  the
          tenant as well as to reduce the rent.  It is noted that  although
          the Rent Administrator stated in the order  that  the  owner  had
          submitted a complete rental history, the amount of the overcharge 
          was in fact determined based on the failure to  submit  a  rental
          history.







          CA 210147 RO
          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that it charged 
          the proper rent to the tenant.

          In answer  to  the  owner's  petition,  the  tenant  contends  in
          substance that the Rent Administrator's order was warranted.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should  be
          granted.

          Section 42A of the former Rent Stabilization Code  requires  that
          an owner retain complete records for each stabilized apartment in 
          effect from June 30, 1974  (or  the  date  the  apartment  became
          subject to rent stabilization, if  later)  and  to  produce  such
          records to the DHCR upon demand.

          Section 26-516 of the Rent Stabilization Law, effective April  1,
          1984, limited an owner's obligation to provide  rent  records  by
          providing that an owner may not be required  to  maintain  or  to
          produce rent records for more than four (4) years  prior  to  the
          most recent registration, and concomitantly, established  a  four
          year limitation on the calculation of rent overcharges.

          It has been the DHCR's policy that  overcharge  complaints  filed
          prior to April 1, 1984, are to be processed pursuant to  the  Law
          or Code in effect on March 31, 1984. (see Section 2526.1 (a)  (4)
          of the current Rent Stabilization Code.)  The DHCR has  therefore
          applied Section 42A of the former Code to  overcharge  complaints
          filed prior to April 1, 1984, requiring complete rent records  in
          these cases.  In following this policy, the DHCR has sought to be 
          consistent with the legislative intent of the Omnibus Housing Act 
          (Chapter 403, Laws of 1983), as implemented by the New York  City
          Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB) the  predecessor  agency  to
          the DHCR, to determine rent overcharge complaints filed with  the
          CAB prior to April 1, 1984, by applying the law in effect at  the
          time such complaints were filed so as not to deprive such tenants 
          of their rights to have the  lawful  stabilized  rent  determined
          from the June 30, 1974 base date and so as not to deprive tenants 
          whose overcharge claims accrued more than  four  years  prior  to
          April 1, 1984 of the right to recover such overcharges.  In  such
          cases, if the owner failed to produce the required rent  records,
          the lawful stabilized rent would be determined  pursuant  to  the
          default procedure approved by the Court of  Appeals  in  61  Jane
          Street Associates v. CAB, 65 N.Y.2d  898,  493  N.Y.  S.  2d  455
          (1985).

          However, it has recently been held in the case of J.R.D. Mgmt. v. 
          Eimicke, 148 A.D.2d 610. 539 N.Y.S. 2d 667 (App. Div.  2d  Dept.,
          1989). motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to  the
          Court of Appeals denied ( App. Div. 2d Dept., N.Y.L.J., June  28,
          1989. p.25, col.1), motion for leave to appeal to  the  Court  of
          Appeals denied (Court of Appeals, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 24, 1989,  p.24,
          col.4)., motion for leave to reargue denied  (Court  of  Appeals,
          N.Y.L.J., Feb. 15, 1990, p.25, col.1), that the Law in effect  at
          the time of the determination  of  the  administrative  complaint
          rather than the Law in effect at the time of the  filing  of  the
          complaint must be applied and that the DHCR could not require  an
          owner to produce more than four years of rent records.

          Since  the  issuance  of  the  decision  in  JRD,  the  Appellate






          CA 210147 RO
          Division, First Department, in the case of Lavanant v. DHCR,  148
          A.D.2d 185, 544 N.Y.S.2d 331 (App.  Div.  1st  Dept.  1989),  has
          issued a decision in direct conflict with  the  holding  in  JRD.
          The Lavanant court expressly rejected the JRD ruling finding that 
          the DHCR may properly require an owner to  submit  complete  rent
          records, rather than records for just four years, and  that  such
          requirement is  both  rational  and  supported  by  the  Law  and
          legislative history of the Omnibus Housing Act.

          Since in the instant case the subject dwelling unit is located in 
          the Second Department, the DHCR is constrained to follow the  JRD
          decision  in  determining  the  tenant's  overcharge   complaint,
          limiting the requirement for rent records to April 1,  1980.   An
          examination of the rent records from April 1, 1980 discloses that 
          no   rent   overcharge    occurred.     Therefore,    the    Rent
          Administrator's order finding a rent overcharge must be revoked.

          With  regard  to  the  tenant's  fair  market   rent   adjustment
          application, an  examination  of  the  records  for  the  subject
          premises discloses that the premises was never  subject  to  rent
          control but was continuously rent stabilized.   Accordingly,  the
          tenant was not entitled to file a  fair  market  rent  adjustment
          application and such application was properly not  considered  by
          the Rent Administrator.

          If the owner has already complied with the  Rent  Administrator's
          order and there are arrears due to the owner as a result  of  the
          instant determination, the tenant is permitted  to  pay  off  the
          arrears in 24 equal  monthly  installments.   Should  the  tenant
          vacate after the issuance of this order or have already  vacated,
          said arrears shall be payable immediately.
          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Appellate  Division  ruling  in
          JRD, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition for  administrative  review  be,  and
          the  same  hereby  is,  granted,  that  the  order  of  the  Rent
          Administrator be, and the same hereby  is,  revoked,  and  it  is
          found that no rent overcharge occurred.

          ISSUED:


                                                                      
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting Deputy Commissioner




                     















          CA 210147 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