DHCR Decisions
CA410092RO
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. CA410092RO
: DRO DOCKET NO.L3115509R
EAST VILLAGE 10TH STREET ASSOCIATES TENANT: STEPHEN PULLAN
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN
PART
On January 14, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
November 7, 1986, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations
known as 259 East 10th Street, New York, 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 originated by the tenant's filing of a rent
overcharge complaint in March, 1984.
In response to the tenant's complaint, the owner East Village
10th Street Associates submitted a rental history for the subject
apartment.
In Order Number CDR 26,354, the Rent Administrator determined
that the owner East Village 10th Street Associates and the prior
owner Howard Buck had overcharged the tenant $8016.92 from December
15, 1979 through February 14, 1985. The Rent Administrator directed
East Village 10th Street Associates to refund to the tenant the
overcharges collected by it but did not determine exactly how much
this amount was and stated that the order was issued without
prejudice to the tenant's right to pursue his claim of rent
overcharges against the prior owner in a court of competent
jurisdiction.
In this petition, East Village 10th Street Associates alleges
in substance that the petition is timely filed because it was never
CA410092RO
sent a copy of the Rent Administrator's order at its current address
when the order was issued - 130 West 42nd Street, New York, New York
and thus never received said order; that it is attempting to locate
additional documentation in support of its petition; that it owned
the subject premises only from June 17, 1981 through February 5,
1985 and that the Rent Administrator's order must at the very least
be corrected to reflect the period of time for which East Village
10th Street Associates is responsible for any alleged overcharges.
No further documentation was submitted on behalf of the owner
herein.
In response to the owner's petition, the tenant stated in
substance that the petition should not be considered timely because
he sent the owner a copy of the Rent Administrator's order when he
received it from the DHCR; that the copy of the order mailed by the
tenant to the owner was never returned to the tenant; that the
appeal filing is just a delaying tactic on the part of the owner;
that there was no requirement that the Rent Administrator list the
specific periods of ownership of a building; and that by the time
the Rent Administrator's order had been issued there was a new owner
of the subject premises.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
granted in part.
At the outset, the Commissioner finds that the petition must be
considered as timely filed. An examination of the record discloses
that the copy of the Rent Administrator's order sent to the owner
herein at 50 East 42nd Street was returned to DHCR by the Post
Office as undelivered with a notation that the owner's address was
130 West 42nd Street. There is no record that the Rent
Administrator's order was ever resent to the correct address of the
owner. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the 35 day period for
filing a petition commenced since the order was not properly served
and the petition is timely.
Turning to the merits of the petition, Section 2526.1(f)(1) of
the Rent Stabilization Code provides in pertinent part that for
overcharges collected prior to April 1, 1984, an owner will be held
responsible only for his or her portion of the overcharges in the
absence of collusion or any relationship between such owner and any
prior owners.
In the instant case, an examination of the record including
the lease history and information supplied by the owner discloses
that the owner acquired the subject premises in June 1981 and sold
the subject premises on February 5, 1985. Accordingly, the owner
herein - East Village 10th Street Associates - is responsible for
all overcharges from July 1, 1981 (first of month following
purchase) until February 14, 1985 (owner presumably received rent
for February, 1985) or a total of $7389.54 including treble damages
CA410092RO
on the overcharge occurring on and after April 1, 1984. The prior
owner Howard Buck is responsible for the remaining overcharge of
$627.38. The tenant may pursue his claim of rent overcharge against
Howard Buck in a court of competent jurisdiction.
A copy of this order is being sent to the current owner of the
subject premises. It is noted that the lawful stabilization rent
for the subject apartment as of April 15, 1982 is $216.32 as
determined by the Rent Administrator.
The current owner is directed to reflect the findings and
determinations made in this order on all future registration
statements, including those for the current year if not already
filed, citing this order as the basis for the change. Registration
statements already on file, however, should not be amended to
reflect the findings and determinations made in this order. The
owner is further directed to adjust subsequent rents to an amount no
greater than that determined by this order plus any lawful
increases.
The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that
the owner East Village 10th Street Associates collected overcharges
of $7389.54. 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.
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, granted in part, and, that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, modified in accordance
with this order and opinion.
ISSUED
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
CA410092RO
|