CK110087RO
                                  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.CK110087RO
                                              :    DRO DOCKET NO.33817
              Jonathan Woodner Co.,                TENANTS:Raymond Torres
                                                           A. Kalfa
                               PETITIONER     :
          ------------------------------------X

             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On November 7, 1988, the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          October 18, 1988, by a Rent Administrator concerning the  housing
          accommodations known as 43-23 Colden Street, Flushing, New  york,
          Apartment 16C, wherein the Administrator determined that the owner 
          had overcharged the tenant and also directed that  the  apartment
          registration be amended to list additional services.

          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 commenced by the tenant's filing of the tenants 
          objection to the registered rent and services  on  September  13,
          1984.  The tenant had assumed occupancy pursuant to a 2 year lease 
          commencing on September 23, 1982 and terminating on September 30, 
          1984 at a rent of $680.00 per month.

          In answer to the complaint, the owner submitted a rental history of 
          the subject apartment dating from  April  1,  1980.   Instead  of
          leases, the owner's rent history consisted of copies of the  rent
          rolls for the subject building.  The owner submitted a rent  roll
          sheet for the tenant (Kunieda) in occupancy in January,  1980,  a
          sheet indicating that a different tenant (Kim) was in occupancy in 
          January, 1982 and a third sheet indicating the first month of the 
          complainant's occupancy in September, 1982.


          CK110087RO












          CK110087RO


          In Order Number 33817, the Rent Administrator determined that the 
          tenant had been overcharged in the amount of $7,748.70, including 
          excess security and interest.  The Administrator  calculated  the
          lease history based on the rent roll sheets submitted by the owner, 
          as follows: a rent of $460.00 on the base date of April 1, 1980; a 
          rent of $587.00 for the two-year lease term for  the  tenant  Kim
          commencing on January 1, 1982, which was the amount collected  by
          the owner; and a lawful  rent  of  $588.80  for  the  complainant
          tenant's lease term commencing on September 23, 1982.  The  order
          determined an overcharge of $91.20 per month for this lease term, 
          primarily because it included a second guidelines increase  under
          Guidelines 13.  Finally, the order listed various services that the 
          owner was obligated to provide.

          In this petition the owner contends that the  Rent  Administrator
          committed an error in its calculations because the order listed the 
          tenant prior to the complainant, J.S.Kim, as having taken occupancy 
          on January 1, 1982, when the owner's rent rolls, which the  owner
          states had been mailed to the Administrator, clearly indicate  an
          occupancy date  of  September  1,  1980.   Therefore,  the  owner
          concludes, there was no double guidelines increase under Guidelines 
          13.  With its petition, the owner submits rent ledger  sheets  to
          document the earlier occupancy of tenant Kim.  Finally, the owner 
          objects  to  the  list  of  services  on  the  initial  apartment
          registration.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should  be
          denied.

          The record  in  this  case  clearly  establishes  that  the  Rent
          Administrator made no error in calculating the lease history from 
          the rent records submitted by the owner.  In its submission to the 
          Rent Administrator, the owner explained that all the leases for the 
          subject apartment had been misplaced but that, in lieu of them, the 
          owner was submitting the rent rolls on which the tenant and  rent
          for the apartment were listed.  The 3 rent roll sheets  submitted
          were for the months of January, 1980, January, 1982 and September, 
          1982, only.  The Administrator properly calculated the rent for the 
          tenant, J.S.Kim, based on a lease term commencing on  January  1,
          1982, since this was the only rent roll sheet submitted that listed 
          that tenant.  The claim in the petition that the rent roll showing 
          that the Kim family was in occupancy in September, 1980 had  been
          submitted below is incorrect, and is clearly a misstatement of the 
          evidence in the record.

          For the first time on appeal, the owner  now  submits  rent  roll
          sheets in addition to the three submitted below to  document  its
          claim that the tenant Kim was in occupancy in September 1980, and 
          improperly claims that it had submitted this documentation earlier. 








          CK110087RO


          However, it is long established that new  evidence  will  not  be
          considered on appeal for the first  time.   The  owner  gives  no
          sufficient reason to abandon this long established rule, and indeed 
          denies that it has broken  it,  even  though  the  record  proves
          otherwise.  Therefore, the lawful rent as determined by the  Rent
          Administrator is affirmed.

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, an owner 
          is required to maintain all required services as defined by Section 
          2520.6(4) regardless of whether the services are registered.   If
          there is a failure to maintain required services, the tenant  may
          apply to the Division for a rent reduction, and any dispute as to 
          whether a service  is  required  or  has  been  reduced  will  be
          determined in that proceeding.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  is
          unnecessary to decide the issues of base date  services  in  this
          appeal.

          Since this decision does not determine the merits of such issues, 
          the order below shall not be used in  any  subsequent  proceeding
          involving base date or required services.

          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.

          A copy of this order is being sent to the current occupant of the 
          subject apartment.

          The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that the 
          owner collected overcharges of $7,748.70.  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.  Upon such filing, 
          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.


















          CK110087RO


          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.




          ISSUED:



           
                                                    JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                    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