DOCKET NO.: DC 810146-RO
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 :
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
: DOCKET NO. DC 810146-RO
PETROCELLI ASSOCIATES LTD., DRO DOCKET NOS. 35055
PETITIONER : Examining Unit
--------------------------------------X TENANTS: LUKE & HELEN CONFORTO
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 1, 1989, the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on January 26, 1989, by the
Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York, concerning
housing accommodations known as Apartment A-4, 437 Palisade Avenue,
Yonkers, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that there
had been an overcharge and ordered a refund.
The issue in this appeal is whether a current owner is responsible to
refund overcharges collected by a prior owner.
The applicable section of the Tenant Protection Regulations is Section
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.
In this petition, the owner contends that the Rent Administrator's Order
is incorrect and should be modified because the order directed the current
owner to refund overcharges collected by a prior owner. In addition, the
owner submits a copy of order number YTC 85-622 wherein the tenant's April
10, 1985 complaint challenging the April 1, 1984 registered rent was
denied since not filed within 90 days of the owner's June 30, 1984
registration of the subject apartment. Since that order was issued April
18, 1986, the owner argues that the order under appeal herein, which was
issued three years later, should be reversed in its entirety.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
At the outset the Commissioner notes that Order Number YTC 85-622
explicitly states that if the tenant had previously filed a timely
challenge (TC-1 form) then a "further Order and Determination may be
forthcoming" from the Tenant Objection Unit at 10 Columbus Circle. The
order under appeal herein is just such an order. Clearly, the subsequent
filing of an untimely challenge in YTC 85-622 does not negate the
timeliness of the original filing, which occurred on August 7, 1984.
Turning to the substance of the owner's appeal, it has long been DHCR's
policy under the Emergency Tenant Protection Act to require a current
owner to refund overcharges collected by a prior owner. This policy has
DOCKET NO.: DC 810146-RO
been upheld by the courts. See S & M Development v. DHCR, Sup. Ct.,
Rockland Co., Index No. 3735/87, February 21, 1984, J. Lange.
This Order is without prejudice to the petitioner's right to proceed in a
court of competent jurisdiction against any prior owner, if the facts so
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Emergency Tenant Protection Act and
Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and the
Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner