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. NO. 7219
            IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
            APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.EA210300RO
                                                :  DRO DOCKET NO.DK210001RP
                 DOUBLE A PROPERTIES ASSOC.                      K3102343RT     
                                                   TENANT: FIZUL & JUDITH AZEEZ

                                  PETITIONER    : 
            ------------------------------------X                             
              ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


                 On January 30, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
            Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on 
            December 27, 1989, by the Rent Administrator,  92-31 Union Hall 
            Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations 
            known as 60 Turner Place, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. 2J, 
            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 
            warranted.

                 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 originally commenced by the filing in 
            March, 1984 of a rent overcharge complaint and a fair market rent 
            appeal by the tenants who stated that they had first moved to the 
            subject apartment in April, 1976 at a rental of $265.00 per month.  
            In response, the owner advised that it had purchased the subject 
            premises during a foreclosure proceeding and was unable to supply a 
            rental history prior to April, 1976.  The owner further advised that 
            the subject building had been constructed in the 1960's and was 
            never subject to rent control.  DHCR records indicate that the 
            subject building was never subject to rent control.  Therefore the 
            tenants were not eligible to file a fair market rent appeal.

                 In Order Number DK210001RP, the Rent Administrator determined 
            that, due to the owner's failure to submit a complete rental 
            history, the tenant had been overcharged in the amount of $4,792.99





            and directed the owner and prior owner to refund such overcharge to 







          EA210300RO
            the tenant as well as to reduce the rent.

                 In this petition, the owner contends in substance that it did 
            not default as it submitted all the rent records it had and that it 
            bought the subject premises in foreclosure.

                 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) and to produce such records to the 
            DHCR upon demand.

                 Section 26-516 of the 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 to 
            produce rent records for more than four (4) years prior to the most 
            recent registration, and concomitantly, established a four 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 rights 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 four years prior to April 1, 1984 of the 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. Mgmt. 
            v. Eimicke, 148 A.D.2d 610. 539 N.Y.S. 2d 667 (App. Div. 2d Dept., 
            1989). motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the 
            Court of Appeals denied ( App. Div. 2d Dept., 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 


          EA210300RO
            produce more than four years of rent records.

                 Since the issuance of the decision in JRD, the Appellate 
            Division, First Department, in the case of Lavanant v. DHCR, 148 
            A.D.2d 185, 544 N.Y.S.2d 331 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 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 dwelling unit is 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 discloses that no rent 
            overcharge occurred.  It is noted that the rent charged on April 1, 
            1980 was $288.85 (not $285.00 as incorrectly listed in the Rent 
            Administrator's rent calculation chart).  The rent was then 
            correctly increased by 16% to $335.00 pursuant to a three year lease 
            renewal effective April 1, 1982.  Therefore, the Rent 
            Administrator's order finding a rent overcharge must be revoked.
            The record also indicates that the tenants vacated the subject 
            apartment in October, 1987.

                 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, 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
                                            Deputy Commissioner




                       





















          EA210300RO

















    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name