Docket No.: CC 210310 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.: CC 210310-RO

             WINDSOR PLACE CORPORATION,           DRO DOCKET NO.: 032429

                                                  TENANT: Andrew Yosha
                                PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X                                   

            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                IN PART AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO THE ADMINISTRATOR

          On  March  2,  1988,  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review  against  an  order  issued  on
          February 18, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus  Circle,
          New York, New York, concerning  housing  accommodations  known  as
          Apartment 53 at 150 Remsen Street, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the 
          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 issues raised by the administrative appeal.

          The tenant originally filed a rent overcharge complaint  with  the
          New  York  City  Conciliation  and  Appeals  Board,  one  of   the
          predecessor agencies to the DHCR, under Docket Number K-3106907-R. 
          The tenant took occupancy pursuant to a lease commencing  November
          1, 1983 and expiring  October  30,  1984  at  a  monthly  rent  of
          $624.00.  

          In answer to that complaint, the owner stated  that  it  purchased
          the building on September 13, 1983, and  that,  according  to  the
          prior lease, the apartment was rent controlled  prior  to  January
          15, 1982; and that no  overcharge  exists.   In  support  of  this
          contention, the owner submitted the lease for the  period  January
          15, 1982 - January 14, 1984, and a rental history from that date.






          Docket No.: CC 210310 RO

          In Order Number CDR 31,041,  issued  on  August  12,  1987,  under
          Docket No. K-3106907-R, the Administrator determined, based on the 
          rental history submitted by the owner, that no overcharge existed.

          During the pendency of its overcharge complaint, on September  15,
          1984, the tenant filed  an  objection  to  the  initial  apartment
          registration,  under  Docket  No.  32429,  claiming,  among  other
          things, that the rent being charged was not the legal rent.

          The owner was served with a copy of the objection to registration, 
          and was requested to submit rent records to prove  the  lawfulness
          of the rent being  charged.   In  response,  the  owner  submitted
          copies of leases from January 15, 1982, and stated that  the  base
          rent date for the apartment was January 15, 1982, the commencement 
          date of the first lease entered into after decontrol.  On July 29, 
          1986, August 20, 1986, and March 9, 1987 the owner  was  requested
          to submit the lease in effect on April 1,  1980,  and  all  leases
          subsequent thereto.  The owner was further directed  to  submit  a
          list of those apartments of similar size which were under the Rent 
          Stabilization Law on November 1, 1983, the date the subject tenant 
          first occupied the apartment.  On October 22, 1987, the owner  was
          requested to submit a copy of the DC-2 notice, with proof that  it
          was served to the first rent-stabilized tenant.

          In response, on November 5, the owner alleged that the tenant  was
          served a  copy  of  the  RR-1  form,  but  never  filed  a  timely
          objection.  The owner  further  cited  Order  No.  CDR  31,041  in
          support of its allegation that no overcharge existed, and that  it
          was required to submit a rental history only going back 4 years.
          The  owner  further  alleged  that  the  nature  of  the  tenant's
          complaint was a rent overcharge, not a fair market rent appeal.

          The  tenant  responded  that  he  did  not  receive  a  notice  of
          decontrol.

          On January 22, 1988 the owner was served with a  Final  Notice  of
          Pending  Default,  indicating  that  its  failure  to  submit  the
          required information would result  in  the  establishment  of  the
          lawful stabilized rent by the Division's  default  procedure,  and
          that treble damages would be imposed on  any  willful  overcharges
          occurring after April 1, 1984.

          The owner failed to submit the required information.

          On February 18, 1988, in the  order  under  appeal  herein,  under
          Docket No. 32429, the Administrator determined that the  statutory
          criteria for processing a fair market  rent  appeal  were  met  in
          this case.  Based on the special guidelines order  promulgated  by
          the NYC Rent Guidelines Board, solely for use in determining  fair
          market rent, and absent comparables, the Administrator established 
          the Fair Market Rent as $282.46, and adjusted  the  initial  legal
          regulated rent as $282.46 effective January 15, 1982.  The owner 






          Docket No.: CC 210310 RO

          was further directed to recompute all lawful increases on or after 
          November 1, 1986 using the base rent of $339.40  per  month.   The
          owner was directed to refund  excess  rent  totalling  $12,344.89,
          including excess security, to the tenant.

          In this petition, the owner contends that the Rent Administrator's 
          order, Docket No. 32429, should  be  reversed,  stating  that  the
          tenant did not file a timely fair market rent appeal, and that the 
          finding of no overcharge by the Administrator  in  order  No.  CDR
          31,041 was correct.

          The tenant, in response to the petition, states that his objection 
          to the rent was a fair market rent challenge; that the decision of 
          the Administrator under Docket No. CDR 31,041 was erroneous, since 
          the calculations were based upon faulty figures;  and  that  order
          No. 32429 should be upheld.

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

          Section 25 of the Code provides that a  fair  market  rent  appeal
          application may be filed by the tenant of an apartment  which  was
          subject to rent stabilization or rent control  prior  to  July  1,
          1971, and was vacated between January 1, 1974 and June  30,  1974,
          both dates inclusive, or of an apartment which was subject to rent 
          control on June 30, 1974 and vacated thereafter.

          The Commissioner finds no basis for a fair market rent  appeal  in
          the instant proceeding.  No documentation of the date of decontrol 
          has been submitted.  There is no evidence that  the  prior  tenant
          who was treated as the first stabilized tenant was, in  fact,  the
          first stabilized tenant.  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that 
          order No. 32429, establishing the  fair  market  rent,  should  be
          revoked.

          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.

          Section 26-516 of 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  produce  rent
          records  for  more  than  4  years  prior  to  the   most   recent
          registration, and concomitantly, established a 4  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 






          Docket No.: CC 210310 RO

          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 right 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 4 years prior  to  April
          1, 1984 of their 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.  Mgt.  v.
          Eimicke, 148 A.D.2d 610, 539 N.Y.S.2d  667  (App.  Div.  2d  Dep't
          1989), motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal  to  the
          Court of Appeals denied (App. Div. 2d Dep't,  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 4 years of rent records.

          Since  the  issuance  of  the  decision  in  JRD,  the   Appellate
          Division, First Department, in the case of Lavanant v.  DHCR,  148
          A.D. 2d 185, 544 N.Y.S.2d 331 (App.  Div.  1st  Dep't  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.

          In this case, the owner asserts that  the  subject  apartment  was
          rent controlled prior to January 15, 1982, but  has  submitted  no
          documentation to support this allegation.   DHCR  records  do  not
          indicate a date of decontrol for the subject apartment.  The owner 
          was therefore required to submit rent records from April 1,  1980,
          but failed to do so.  Based thereon, the Commissioner finds that 






          Docket No.: CC 210310 RO

          the proceeding should be remanded to the Administrator to 
          determine  the  lawful  stabilized  rent  based  on  the   default
          procedure.

          The Commissioner notes that the proceeding that  resulted  in  the
          issuance of Order No. CDR 31,041 was a  complaint  of  a  specific
          rent overcharge in  the  tenant's  initial  lease,  in  which  the
          Administrator only considered the preceding  lease,  and  did  not
          consider all rents from April 1, 1980.  It did  not  deal  with  a
          complaint of general overcharge, as in this case.

          THEREFORE, in accordance  with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same  hereby  is  granted,
          that the District Rent Administrator's order No. 32429 be and  the
          same hereby is revoked, and the proceeding be and the same  hereby
          is remanded for recomputation of overcharges and  penalties  under
          the default procedure.

          ISSUED:



                                        ------------------------
                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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