OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

     ------------------------------------X  SJR 4575
     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: DH 210172-RO
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: AG 210024-R
                           PETITIONER    : 


     On August 9, 1989 the above-named petitioner-owner filed an Administrative 
     Appeal against an order issued on June  23,  1989  by  the  District  Rent
     Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning  the
     housing accommodations known as 8757 Bay 16th Street, Brooklyn, New  York,
     Apartment D4.

     On  October  5,  1989,  the  Commissioner  issued  an  order  and  opinion
     dismissing the administrative appeal  as  not  having  been  timely  filed
     within thirty-five days after the  issuance  date  of  the  District  Rent
     Administrator's order.

     Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed a petition in the  Supreme  Court
     pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules requesting that 
     the order of the Commissioner be annulled.

     On March 20, 1990, an order was signed by Justice Irving Aronin  remitting
     the proceeding  to  the  Division  for  a  determination  of  the  owner's
     administrative appeal, on the merits.  

     The administrative appeal is being determined pursuant to  the  provisions
     of 9 NYCRR 2526.1.

     The issue herein is  whether  the  District  Rent  Administrator  properly
     determined the tenant's complaint of rent overcharges.

     A review of the record indicates that on July 17, 1986, the tenant filed a 
     complaint of rent overcharge wherein the tenant stated that she moved into 
     the subject apartment on  December  1,  1984  pursuant  to  a  lease  from
     December 1, 1984 to November 30, 1985 at a monthly rent of  $375.00;  that
     her current lease began on February 1, 1986 and will terminate on  January
     31, 1988 at a monthly rent of $399.38; that the owner did not provide  her
     with a copy of the apartment registration; that  she  does  not  know  the
     rental history of the apartment;  and  that  she  believes  she  is  being

     On July 30, 1986, the Division mailed a copy of the tenant's complaint  to
     the owner who  responded on November 14, 1986 by stating, in toto, that in 


          DOCKET NUMBER: DH 210172-RO
     the Summer of 1983, the subject apartment was completely  renovated;  that
     new walls, new ceilings, new doors, new  windows,  and  a  new  fire-proof
     front door were installed at a cost of $8,900.00.

     On December 22, 1987, the Division mailed a notice to  the  owner  stating
     that the record fails to reveal that the subject  apartment  was  properly
     registered and requesting that  the  owner  submit  a  copy  of  the  1984
     apartment registration with proof of service on the tenant.  On  or  about
     said date, the Division also mailed  a  notice  to  the  owner  requesting
     copies of cancelled checks and bills showing the costs and  dates  of  the
     claimed improvements to the apartment.

     The record does not contain any response from the owner  to  said  notices
     and on March 18, 1988, the Division  sent  notices  to  the  owner,  again
     requesting a copy of the 1984 apartment registration with proof of service 
     on the tenant and copies of cancelled checks and  bills  for  the  claimed
     improvements, as well as a copy of the current lease.

     The record does not contain any response from the owner to this second set 
     of notices and on March 21, 1989, the Division  mailed  a  notice  to  the
     owner requesting a copy of the 1984 apartment registration with  proof  of
     service, and a notice to the tenant asking for copies of all  leases  from
     February 1, 1988 to date.

     The tenant responded by submitting a copy of the lease from April 1,  1988
     through March 31, 1989 at a monthly rent of $411.36.

     On April 11, 1989, the Division mailed a notice to the owner requesting  a
     copy of the lease in effect prior to the subject tenant's  occupancy.   No
     response was received and on May 22, 1989, the  Division  mailed  a  final
     notice to the owner advising the owner of the overcharge  calculation  and
     that treble damages will be imposed.   The  owner  was  afforded  a  final
     opportunity to respond.

     No response  was  received  and  on  June  23,  1989,  the  District  Rent
     Administrator  issued  the  order  appealed  herein.   The  District  Rent
     Administrator's order determined that the tenant had  been  overcharged  a
     total, including treble damages,  of  $4,147.68  during  the  period  from
     December 1, 1984  through  March  31,  1989  and  established  the  lawful
     stabilization rent at $383.72 per month under the lease from April 1, 1988 
     through March 31, 1989.

     On appeal, the petitioner-owner alleges, in substance,  that  the  subject
     apartment was renovated before the subject tenant took occupancy; and that 
     new ceilings, new walls, new windows, new doors, and a  refrigerator  were
     installed at a total cost of $10,918.00.  The owner  did  not  submit  any
     documentary evidence, such as cancelled checks and bills, to  substantiate
     this  claim.   The  owner  submitted  a  copy  of   the   1985   apartment

     After a careful  consideration  of  the  entire  evidence  of  record  the
     Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative  appeal  should  be


          DOCKET NUMBER: DH 210172-RO
     The District Rent Administrator properly determined the tenant's complaint 
     of rent overcharge on the basis of the owner's failure to respond  to  any
     of  the  Division's  numerous  requests  for  additional  evidence  and/or
     information.  The record reveals that all such notices were mailed to  the
     owner at her correct address and none were returned by the  United  States
     Post Office as undeliverable as addressed.  It must therefore be  presumed
     that the notices were duly delivered in the normal course of business.

     On appeal, the only stated objection to the District Rent  Administrator's
     order is that it does not provide for certain claimed improvements to  the
     subject apartment.  The owner made  this  same  claim  in  answer  to  the
     tenant's complaint but  then  failed  to  respond  to  the  District  Rent
     Administrator's requests  for  documentary  evidence  substantiating  such
     claim.  Even on appeal, the owner has failed to  submit  any  evidence  in
     support of her claim.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law 
     and Code, it is

     ORDERED, that this administrative appeal  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
     denied and that the order of the District Rent Administrator be,  and  the
     same hereby is, affirmed.


                                             ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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