ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CA 410312 RO
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 : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CA 410312 RO
: DRO DOCKET NO.:
671 WEST 162ND STREET ASSOCIATES Q 3122770 - RT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 28, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
December 24, 1987, by the District Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus
Circle, New York, New York, concerning housing accommodations
known as Apartment 26, 671 West 162nd Street, New York, New York,
wherein the District Rent Administrator determined that the tenant
had been overcharged.
The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was initiated
prior to April 1, 1984. Sections 2526.1(a)(4) and 2521.1(d) of
the Rent Stabilization Code (effective May 1, 1987) governing rent
overcharge and fair market rent proceedings provide that
determination of these matters be based upon the law or code
provisions in effect on March 31, 1984. Therefore, unless
otherwise indicated, reference to sections of the Rent
Stabilization Code (Code) contained herein are to the Code in
effect on April 30, 1987.
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 of a
rent overcharge complaint and Fair Market Rent Application by the
tenant on March 31, 1984 with the New York City Conciliation and
Appeals Board, one of the predecessor agencies to the DHCR. The
tenant took occupancy pursuant to a lease commencing May 1, 1977
and expiring April 30, 1980 at a monthly rent of $295.00.
The owner was served with copies of the complaint and
application and was requested to submit rent records to prove the
lawfulness of the rent being charged. The owner responded and
provided copies of leases and renewals for the subject apartment
for the period from May 1, 1977 through April 30, 1988, and a copy
of a report of statutory decontrol filed November 9, 1973.
In the order appealed herein, the District Rent Administrator
determined that the tenant's Fair Market Rent Application did not
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CA 410312 RO
meet the statutory criteria for a Fair Market Rent Appeal and it
was therefore dismissed. The Administrator established the
lawful stabilization rent using the default procedure based on the
owner's failure to submit required rent records back to the base
date of June 30, 1974, set the lawful stabilization rent at
$315.87 as of May 1, 1986 through April 30, 1988 and ordered a
refund of the overcharges in the amount of $10,867.95 including
In this petition, the owner contends that the District Rent
Administrator's Order is incorrect and should be modified because
the Fair Market Rent Application was dismissed and all increases
on the tenant's renewal leases were calculated in accordance with
In answer to this petition, the tenant contends that the
order should be upheld because owner never charged a fair market
rent and the apartment has many violations.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
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) to date and to
produce such records to the DHCR upon demand.
The evidence of record indicates that the owner was
requested to submit a complete rent history back to the base date.
The owner failed to provide documentation to that date. The
Commissioner therefore finds that the Administrator properly
established the rent using the default procedure.
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 District Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby