DD110296RO
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
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEALS OF DOCKET NO. DD110296RO
Rental Management Associates
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
DOCKET NO. 54647
TENANT: Edward Smith
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 19, 1989, the above-named owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on March 20, 1989, by a
Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known as
Apartment 104 at 41-11 Parsons Boulevard, Flushing, New York, wherein
the Administrator ordered the owner to refund to the tenant $7,668.09,
representing the excess rent collected by the owner over the legal
regulated rent as established in the order.
The record reflects: that the tenant's initial lease was from January 1,
1981 through December 31, 1982; that the tenant filed his complaint on
January 31, 1985; that the rent was not raised until the second lease
took effect on September 1, 1986; and that the owner received notice of
the complaint in 1987.
The Administrator's order, which determined the fair market rent of the
subject apartment, found that excess rent had been paid under the 1981
lease and found the same monthly excess rent payment during the time
that there was no lease, i.e., it allowed for no increase in the lawful
rent during the latter period, stating in explanation that "[n]o rent
increase [was] taken by [the] . . . owner." It is that refusal to grant
an increase in the lawful rent, during that month-to-month tenancy, that
forms the subject of the present appeal.
Citing section 2522.7, "Consideration of Equities," of the Rent
Stabilization Code, petitioner argues that such consideration (aimed
inter alia at "preserving the regulated rental housing stock") demands
the allowance of a rental increase under the appropriate order of the
Rent Guidelines Board, for the month-to-month tenancy immediately
following the expiration of the first lease. An aggravating factor, the
argument continues, is that if this Division had "made a determination
... in this case shortly after the complaint was filed, instead of years
later, the owner would have had an opportunity to enter into a renewal
lease with the tenant at the applicable [G]uidelines [Board] increase
over the initial rent established by DHCR."
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
DD110296RO
The Administrator followed established law and policy in freezing the
lawful rent for the period not covered by a written lease, and he was
well within his discretion in declining to invoke the aforementioned
section 2522.7 to avoid such a freeze. The Rent Stabilization Code
mentions regular "guidelines" increases solely in the context of new and
renewal leases, and the Commissioner's policy of "deeming" a lease to
have been executed applies only to situations where the rent was changed
(indicating notice to the tenant of a new arrangement) after a lease
expired. Further, the length of time taken by the Rent Administrator to
decide this proceeding did not preclude the owner from offering a
renewal lease when the initial lease was due to expire, as required by
the Rent Stabilization Law and Code. The DHCR is not responsible for an
individual owner's ignorance of or negligence as to its obligation to
offer a renewal lease to a rent-stabilized tenant. In sum, since the
equities do not demand the allowance of a guidelines increase for the
intervening month-to-month tenancy herein, the Administrator did not err
in refusing to include such an increase in his calculations, and as that
refusal is the only error assigned in this appeal, the subject order
will not be disturbed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and that
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|