Docket Number: DH 410406-RT
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.: DH 410406-RT
HARVEY DANUT, DRO DOCKET NO.: AL 410222-R
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING TENANT'S PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW IN PART
On August 25, 1989, the above-named petitioner filed a timely
refiled petition for administrative review against an order issued
on May 23, 1989, by an Administrator concerning the housing
accommodation known as 421 Hudson Street, New York, New York,
apartment 402, wherein the Administrator established the lawful
stabilized rent of $1,622.11 as of November 1, 1988 and directed
the owner to refund an overcharge of $225.92 including treble
The issue in this appeal is whether the 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
issues raised in the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was originally commenced December 10, 1986, by the
filing of an overcharge complaint by the tenant. The tenant took
occupancy of the subject apartment pursuant to a two year vacancy
lease commencing on November 1, 1984 and expiring on October 31,
1986, at a monthly rental of $1,330.34.
On February 20, 1986, the owner in reply to the tenant's complaint
supplied the Division with leases from September 1, 1980 through
April 30, 1984 and November 1, 1984 through October 31, 1986. The
owner further maintained that the Administrator determined in CDR
6045 that the owner could increase the monthly rent for each
apartment by $30.00 based on the commencement of doorman service.
In order number AL-41022-R, the Administrator determined the owner
had collected an overcharge in the sum of $225.92 including treble
damages and established the lawful stabilized rent at $1,171.92 as
of April 1, 1984.
In this petition, the tenant contends that the Administrator's
order must be modified. The petitioner contends that the
Administrator erred in establishing the rent at $1,171.92 because
it included the doorman fee of $30.00, which at the time of the
Administrator's determination was being reconsidered. The
petitioner also objects to the owner's collection of a vacancy
Docket Number: DH 410406-RT
increase during Rent Guideline Board Order Number 16. Lastly, the
petitioner alleges that the owner did not serve him or the prior
tenant with an annual apartment registration form.
After careful consideration of the record, the Commissioner is of
the opinion that the petition should be granted in part.
A review of the records reveals that CDR 6045 was subsequently
reopened based on possible errors or irregularities in its
processing. CDR 6045 was given docket number CC-410235-RP and the
Administrator's new determination revoked the prior order and
directed the owner to recompute all guideline increases which
included the doorman fee. In addition, the owner was ordered to
refund overcharges and to establish an escrow account.
Subsequent to this determination both the tenants and owner
appealed the determination in CC-410235-RP. In the appeal of
CC-410235-RP, the Commissioner has affirmed the directive to
establish an escrow account as specified by the Administrator and
the owner was directed to pay within 30 days of the issuance of the
Commissioner's Order and Opinion any refunds due tenants in
occupancy or condominium owners up to the date of purchase those
sums due them pursuant to this order plus interest. For tenants
who have vacated, the owner is directed to create an escrow account
as ordered by the Administrator within 90 days after the issuance
of this Order and notify the Compliance Unit of the Division as
well as the tenants the name of the bank and the account number of
The owner shall refund or deposit in said escrow account the
retroactive refund due to tenants who voted against the addition of
doorman service or who joined in the prior petition as well as the
refunds due prospectively from the date of Administrator's order to
those tenants who did not either oppose or consent to the increase.
The record indicates that the subject tenant joined the appeal of
CC-410235-RP, therefore the $30.00 fee has been revoked from the
lawful stabilized rent effective April 1, 1984. Accordingly, the
Commissioner has recomputed the lawful stabilized rent.
Regarding the petitioner's objection of the owner's collection of a
vacancy increase during Rent Guideline Board 16 effective for
leases commencing October 1, 1984 through September 30, 1985, a
review of the guideline number 16 indicates that the owner was
allowed to collect a seven and one-half (7.5%) percent vacancy
allowance if the owner did not collect a vacancy increase under
Rent Guideline Order Number 15. Evidence within the file indicates
Docket Number: DH 410406-RT
that the owner did not collect a vacancy increase during Rent
Guideline Order Number 15. Accordingly, the owner was entitled to
the 7.5% vacancy allowance.
As to the petitioner's contention that it did not receive an annual
apartment registration form during its initial occupancy, evidence
within the file indicates that the owner served the prior tenant
with an annual apartment registration form. The owner provided the
Division with a Certificate of Mailing dated September 24, 1984.
Therefore, the owner complied with the Division's registration
requirements of serving the tenant in occupancy with the apartment
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same is hereby granted in
part; and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the
same hereby is modified.
The lawful stabilization rents are established on the attached
chart which is fully made a part of this order.