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. CC610344RO
: DRO DOCKET NO.
Eustace Bocchus, B3100107-R/T
TENANT: Milcar Burgos
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 22, 1988 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order issued on February 17,
1988, by a Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodations known as 1692 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York,
Apartment No.22 wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the
owner had overcharged the tenant.
The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was filed 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 Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of Section 42A of the former 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 of a rent
overcharge complaint by the tenant on March 30, 1984. The tenant
had assumed occupancy on March 1, 1981 pursuant to a two year lease
at a rent of $240.83 per month. In response to the tenant's
complaint, the owner stated in substance that she had acquired the
building in 1982, when the tenant was paying $240.00 per month
rent, and had added the correct increase in accordance with the
guidelines, and also an MCI increase, which had been approved in an
order, Docket Number OM-3518, which was enclosed. However, the
owner submitted no rental history prior to the complainant's
In Order Number B3100107R/T, the Rent Administrator determined that
due to the owner's failure to submit a complete rental history, the
owner had collected a rent overcharge of $1,210.93, including
interest on that portion of the overcharge occurring on and after
April 1, 1984.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the tenant
was paying the "fair market price" for the apartment, and that all
rent increases had been correctly computed.
The tenant did not answer the owner's petition.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
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 to date and produce them to the DHCR upon
demand. If the apartment was decontrolled from the Rent Control
Law after June 30, 1974, the owner must provide satisfactory
documentary evidence of the apartment's date of decontrol and
submit a rental history from that date.
In the instant case, the owner has not provided a complete rental
history as mandated by Section 42A. Accaordingly, the Rent
Administrator's order establishing the lawful stabilization rent
utilizing the Section 42A default procedure and finding a rent
overcharge was warranted.
The 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 collected overcharges of $1,210.93. 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 or not in excess of
twenty percent per month of the overcharge may be offset against
any rent thereafter due the owner. Where the tenant credits the
overcharge, the tenant may add to the overcharge, or 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, denied, and, that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA