DI 210353 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 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: DI 210353-RO
OCEAN REALTY COMPANY,
DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: ZK 3108098-T
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING TO THE RENT ADMINISTRATOR
On September 28, 1989 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued
September 7, 1989 by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodation known as Apartment 6A, 7100 Ridge Boulevard,
Brooklyn, New York.
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.
The original proceeding was initiated by the first stabilized
tenant on July 23, 1985, by filing a fair market rent appeal.
The tenant assumed occupancy on May 1, 1985 pursuant to a two
year lease at a rent of $525.00 per month.
A copy of the complaint was served upon the owner along with a
notice advising the owner that the complaint was in reference to
fair market rent and rent overcharge.
In Order Number K 3108098-T, issued on September 7, 1989 the Rent
Administrator adjusted the initial legal regulated rent by
establishing a fair market rent of $413.32 effective May 1, 1985,
the commencement date of the initial stabilized lease, and
determined that excess rent had been collected in the amount of
$6,435.42, through September 30, 1989.
In its petition the owner contends that the Administrator
incorrectly stated that comparability data on similar apartments
had not been submitted by the owner, but that such data actually
was submitted. Enclosed with the petition are copies of the
Division f Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR's) form-
Schedule A listing the June 30, 1974 rents for the subject line,
which indicated that they were all rent controlled on that date,
and the listing of the June 30, 1974 rent for a line of 4-room
apartments in another building, which the owner claims is
comparable to the subject building. The second list indicated
DI 210353 RO
that one apartment was stabilized on that date.
The tenants' answer states, inter alia, that the allegedly
comparable building at 8701 Shore Road is not comparable to the
subject-building and is located in a different neighborhood.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be
remanded to the Rent Administrator for a new determination.
Pursuant to Section 2522.3(e) and 9f) the Rent Stabilization Code
effective May 1, 1987, for fair market rent appeals filed after
April 1, 1984, comparability will be determined based on the
(e)...(1) Legal regulated rents, for which
the time to file a Fair Market Rent
Appeal has expired and no Fair
Market Rent Appeal is then pending,
or the Fair Market Rent Appeal has
been finally determined, charged
pursuant to a lease commencing
within a 4 year period prior to, or
a one year period subsequent to,
the commencement date of the
initial lease for the housing
accommodation involved; and
(2) At the owner's option, market rents
in effect for other comparable
housing accommodations on the date
of the initial lease for the
housing accommodation involved as
submitted by the owner
(f) Where the rents of the comparable
housing accommodations being
considered are legal regulated
rents, for which the time to file a
Fair Market Rent Appeal has
expired, and such rents are charged
pursuant to a lease ending more
than 1 year prior to the
commencement date of the initial
lease for the subject housing
accommodation, such rents shall be
updated by guidelines increases for
1 year renewal leases, commencing
with the expiration of the initial
lease for the comparable housing
accommodations to a date within 12
months prior to the renting of the
housing accommodations involved.
The Commissioner finds that in this case the owner was not
afforded an opportunity to submit comparability data pursuant to
the requirements of the current Rent Stabilization Code.
Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the proceeding should be
remanded to the Administrator for further processing in order to
afford the owner an opportunity to submit comparability data
DI 210353 RO
pursuant to the requirements of the current code.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
granted to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the
District Rent Administrator for further processing in accordance
with this order and opinion. The automatic stay of so much of
the District Rent Administrator's order as directed a refund is
hereby continued until a new order is issued upon remand.
However, the Administrator's determination as to the rent is not
stayed and shall remain in effect, except for any adjustments
pursuant to lease renewals, until the Administrator issues a new
Order upon remand.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner