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. DJ210406RO
: DRO DOCKET NO.059174
BEACH HAVEN APTS. #1 INC. TENANT: S. & V. BURCH
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 4, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
September 29, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations
known as 400 Argyle Road, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. LJ3,
wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had
overcharged the tenant.
The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2526.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
The issue herein is whether the Rent 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 issue raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on November 30, 1985 by the
tenants' filing of an objection to rent in which they stated in
substance that the April 1, 1984 rent was registered at $449.23, but
that they were currently paying $476.18 in rent.
The owner did not file an answer to this objection although
afforded an opportunity to do so.
In Order Number 059174, the Rent Administrator determined that,
due to the owner's failure to submit a complete rental history from
April 1, 1980, the tenant had been overcharged in the amount of
$7,434.73 from May 1, 1984 through April 30, 1986, including treble
damages and excess security.
In this petition, the owner alleges in substance that the Rent
Administrator improperly failed to consider prior docket K3102992R
wherein the same tenants had filed a rent overcharge complaint. In
such earlier docket, the owner had submitted a complete rental
history and the Rent Administrator, based thereon, had issued an
order on May 14, 1986, finding that no rent overcharge had occurred.
The owner further urges that pursuant to the decision in the earlier
order, the matter was now res judicata and could not be relitigated
in the docket under appeal herein.
In answer to the petition, the tenants stated in substance that
the Rent Administrator's order finding a rent overcharge was
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
An examination of the records in this case discloses that the
owner is correct in its contention that the Rent Administrator had
issued an earlier order under docket number K3102992R finding no
rent overcharge on the basis of a complete rental history submitted
by the owner. Such earlier order found the lawful stabilization
rent to be $449.23 effective September 1, 1983 up to April 30, 1985
(the end of the lease term). The earlier order was not appealed by
the tenants and is res judicata regarding the rent through April 30,
1985. In the complaint herein, the tenants were basically
questioning why the rent was increased from $449.23 to $476.18
effective May 1, 1985. The answer is because of the one year
renewal lease effective May 1, 1985 whereby the owner was entitled
to a 6% guideline increase over the $449.23 rent making the rent
$476.18 pursuant to Guideline 16. Accordingly, no rent overcharge
occurred and the Rent Administrator's order to that effect must be
revoked in its entirety.
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 tenants are permitted to pay off the
arrears in 24 equal monthly installments. Should the tenants vacate
after the issuance of this order or have already vacated, said
arrears shall be payable immediately.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, 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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA