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. CE410066RT
: DRO DOCKET NO. 43155
MARK HAVLIS OWNER: PINE MANAGEMENT, INC.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 27, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on April
26, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York,
New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 141 West
80th Street, New York, New York, Apartment No. 3F wherein the Rent
Administrator determined that the owner had not overcharged the
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
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
August, 1984 of a Tenant's Objection to Rent/Services Registration
in which the tenant stated that there was a rent overcharge and that
he was filing a fair market rent appeal. The tenant stated that he
had first rented the subject apartment on June 1, 1979 and that he
had received a copy of the initial apartment registration form
(hereafter RR-1) from the owner.
In response to the tenant's complaint, the owner stated in
substance that a fair market rent appeal was not permissible in that
there were never any rent controlled tenants in the subject premises
and submitted a rent history from April 1, 1980. The owner also
submitted a lease for the subject apartment dated March 3, 1975
showing a prior stabilized tenant in occupancy on that date.
In Order Number 43155, the Rent Administrator based on a
examination of the rental history from April 1, 1980 determined that
no rent overcharge had occurred and dismissed the tenant's fair
market rent appeal on the basis that the subject premises were
continuously stabilized and never subject to the Rent Control Law.
In this petition, the tenant contends in substance that he
believes that his initial rent was an overcharge and that the DHCR
should investigate the amount of the prior tenant's lease rent.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
Section 2526.1(a)(3)(ii) of the Rent Stabilization Code
provides in pertinent part that for overcharge complaints filed
within ninety days of the initial registration of a housing
accommodation, the legal regulated rent for purposes of determining
an overcharge shall be deemed to be the rent charged and paid on
April 1, 1980, or for a hosing accommodation not required to be
registered by June 30, 1984, 4 years prior to the date the housing
accommodation was first required to be registered.
In the instant case, the owner has provided a complete rental
history from April 1, 1980 as mandated by Section 2526.1(a)(3)(ii).
The owner was not required to provide any rental information prior
to April 1, 1980 to determine the tenant's rent overcharge
complaint. Accordingly, the Rent Administrator's order was
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA