DJ 210321 RO
                                  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  S.J.R. 6224
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE    ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:  DJ 210321 RO

                    
                                                 DRO DOCKET NO.: CDR 18,410 
                    PREMIER ASSOCIATES,                          AS AMENDED


                                                 TENANT:    JUDITH     KAMEN
                                   PETITIONER    
          ------------------------------------X 



            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                   AFTER COURT REMIT
                                        


          On  October  27,  1989  the  above-named  petitioner   filed   an
          Administrative Appeal against orders issued on  October  6,  1989
          by the District Rent Administrator of the  Queens  District  Rent
          Office,  concerning   the   housing   accommodations   known   as
          Apartments 7E and 7F at 1401 Ocean Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.

          On November 29,  1991,  the  Commissioner  issued  an  order  and
          opinion denying the petitioner's administrative appeal.

          Subsequent thereto, the petitioner owner 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 April 10, 1992 an order was signed  by  the  Honorable  Julius
          Vinik, Justice  remitting  the  proceeding  to  the  Division  of
          Housing and Community Renewal determination of the issues  raised
          in the Article 78 petition.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent  Administrator's  order  was
          warranted.

          This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing  on  March
          22,  1984  of  two  rent  overcharge  complaints  by  the  tenant
          concerning her two apartments.


          By orders issued on October 6, 1989 under Docket Numbers  18,410,
          As  Modified,  the  Rent  Administrator  determined  the   lawful
          stabilized rent for apartments 7E and  7F,  determined  that  the
          tenant had been overcharged and directed the owner to refund such 






          DJ 210321 RO
          overcharge to the tenant as well as to reduce the rent.

          In the Artile 78 petition the owner contends that by  statute  it
          should not have be required  to  submit  rent  records  prior  to
          April 1, 1980.

          After careful consideration of all the evidence  of  record,  the
          Commissioner is of the  opinion  that  this  petition  should  be
          granted.

          Section 42A of the former Rent Stabilization Code  requires  that
          an owner retain complete records for each stabilized apartment in 
          effect from June 30, 1974  (or  the  date  the  apartment  became
          subject to rent stabilization, if later) to date and  to  produce
          such records to the DHCR upon demand.

          Section 26-516 of Rent  Stabilization  Law,  effective  April  1,
          1984, limited an owner's obligation to provide  rent  records  by
          providing that an owner  may  not  be  required  to  maintain  or
          produce rent records for more than 4  years  prior  to  the  most
          recent registration, and  concomitantly,  established  a  4  year
          limitation on the calculation of rent overcharges.

          It has been the DHCR's policy that  overcharge  complaints  filed
          prior to April 1, 1984 are to be processed pursuant to the law or 
          Code in effect on March 31, 1984.  (See Section  2526.1(a)(4)  of
          the current Rent Stabilization Code.)   The  DHCR  has  therefore
          applied Section 42A of the former Code to  overcharge  complaints
          filed prior to April 1, 1984, requiring complete rent records  in
          these cases.  In following this policy, the DHCR has sought to be 
          consistent with the legislative intent of the Omnibus Housing Act 
          (Chapter 403, Laws of 1983), as implemented by the New York  City
          Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB), the predecessor  agency  to
          the DHCR, to determine rent overcharge complaints filed with  the
          CAB prior to April 1, 1984 by applying the law in effect  at  the
          time such complaints were filed so as not to deprive such tenants 
          of their right to have the lawful stabilized rent determined from 
          the June 30, 1974 base date and so  as  not  to  deprive  tenants
          whose overcharge claims accrued more than 4 years prior to  April
          1, 1984 of their right to  recover  such  overcharges.   In  such
          cases, if the owner failed to produce the required rent  records,
          the lawful stabilized rent would be determined  pursuant  to  the
          default procedure approved by the Court of  Appeals  in  61  Jane
          Street Associates v. CAB, 65 N.Y.2d 898, 493 N.Y.S.2d 455 (1985).

          However, it has recently been held in the case of J.R.D. Mgt.  v.
          Eimicke, 148 A.D.2d 610, 539 N.Y.S.2d 667  (App.  Div.  2d  Dep't
          1989), motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to  the
          Court of Appeals denied (App. Div. 2d Dep't, N.Y.L.J.,  June  28,
          1989, p.25, col. 1), motion for leave to appeal to the  Court  of
          Appeals denied (Court of Appeals, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 24, 1989, p. 24, 
          col. 4), motion for leave to reargue denied  (Court  of  Appeals,
          N.Y.L.J., Feb 15, 1990, p. 25, col. 1), that the law in effect at 
          the time of the determination  of  the  administrative  complaint
          rather than the law in effect at the time of the  filing  of  the
          complaint must be applied and that the DHCR could not require  an
          owner to produce more than 4 years of rent records.

          Since  the  issuance  of  the  decision  in  JRD,  the  Appellate






          DJ 210321 RO
          Division, First Department, in the case of Lavanant v. DHCR,  148
          A.D. 2d 185, 544 N.Y.S.2d 331 (App. Div.  1st  Dep't  1989),  has
          issued a decision in direct conflict with  the  holding  in  JRD.
          The Lavanant court expressly rejected  the  JRD  ruling,  finding
          that the DHCR may properly require an owner  to  submit  complete
          rent records, rather than records for just four years,  and  that
          such requirement is both rational and supported by  the  law  and
          legislative history of the Omnibus Housing Act.

          Since in the instant case the subject apartments are  located  in
          the Second Department, the DHCR is constrained to follow the  JRD
          decision  in  determining  the  tenant's  overcharge   complaint,
          limiting the requirement for rent records to April 1,  1980.   An
          examination of the rent records from April 1, 1980 for apartments 
          7E and 7F discloses that no rent  overcharge  occurred  for  both
          apartments.  Therefore, the Rent Administrator's order finding  a
          rent overcharge must be revoked.

          If the owner has already complied with the  Rent  Administrator's
          order and there are arrears due to the owner as a result  of  the
          instant determination, the tenant shall be permitted to  pay  off
          the arrears in twenty four equal  monthly  installments.   Should
          the tenant vacate after  the  issuance  of  this  order  or  have
          already vacated, said arrears shall be payable immediately.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Appellate  Division  ruling  in
          JRD, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and the 
          same hereby  is,  granted,  and,  that  the  order  of  the  Rent
          Administrator be, and the same hereby  is,  revoked,  and  it  is
          found that no rent overcharge occurred.



          ISSUED

                                                                      
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting Deputy Commissioner