DHCR Decisions
DOCKET NUMBER: SJR 4953; EB 410165-RT
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 SJR 4953
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:EB 410165-RT
:
DRO DOCKET NO.:BL 410035-RP
TC 06842-G/CDR 28617
RACHEL BONEM PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION REOPENING PROCEEDING AND REMANDING ON APPEAL AFTER
REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO JUDGMENT OF COURT
The abovenamed petitioner tenant filed a Petition for Administrative
Review against an order issued on November 14, 1989 by the Rent
Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 171 West 71st
Street, Apartment 10C, Manhattan.
On March 15, 1990 the Commissioner issued an order dismissing the petition
as untimely. The tenant instituted an Article 78 proceeding. The court
found that the petition was timely and remitted the proceeding.
Since this proceeding was originally initiated before April 1, 1984,
unless otherwise indicated, it is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of the former Rent Stabilization Code in effect prior to May 1,
1987.
The tenant filed a complaint of overcharges on February 14, 1983.
In response the owner alleged that the apartment had been occupied rent
free by a superintendent "from prior to 1969 until late 1974 (subsequent
to July 1, 1974)" and remained vacant thereafter until rented to Ms. Bonem
commencing AUgust 1, 1977 at a rent of $25.00 per month.
The owner submitted, among other things, copies of ledger pages reciting
occupancy by a superintendent and no rent collected throughout 1974 and
1975 but a rent of $550.00 per month collected (from some unspecified
person) from October 1976 through May 1977 and no rent collected for June
1976.
In subsequent correspondence the owner alleged that the abovenoted entries
showing rents collected for 1976 and 1977 were erroneous and that the
owner at that time had become incompetent and conservators were later
appointed.
The Rent Administrator issued an order on June 12, 1987 dismissing the
tenant's complaint based on a finding that there were no overcharges. All
rent increases above the tenant's initial lease rent of $525.00 were
within the applicable Guidelines.
DOCKET NUMBER: SJR 4953; EB 410165-RT
The tenant filed a petition (BB 410500-RT) and the Commissioner issued an
order on November 24, 1987 remanding the matter and directing the
Administrator, in substance, to examine the rental history evidence more
closely.
The herein appealed order of the Rent Administrator was issued pursuant
tot remand and in substance affirmed the prior order finding that,
pursuant to Sections 2(g) and 66A of the former Code, the apartment was
not subject to the stabilization on June 30, 1974 and that the first rent
charged the tenant thereafter ($525.00) became the base rent for
stabilization purposes.
In her petition, the tenant, among other things, urges that as the alleged
first stabilized tenant she was entitled to have her complaint treated as
a fair market rent appeal; that the Administrator apparently disregarded
an answer she submitted after the proceeding was reopened; and that the
owner has not established when or under what circumstances the apartment
became decontrolled and that it may even still be rent controlled.
The tenant also submits a copy of part of the schedule of a 1972 Maximum
Base Rent order listing one J. Cohl as tenant of the subject apartment
paying a December 1, 1971 rent of $241.05 with a 1972 Maximum Base Rent of
$307.57 and Maximum Collectible Rent of $259.13.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the proceeding should be remanded
for further processing.
One of the few undisputed facts in the record is that the tenant took
occupancy after June 30, 1971. The apartments is, therefore,
presumptively subject to stabilization rather than rent control unless the
tenant can somehow establish otherwise.
The owner's allegations of occupancy by a superintendent from before 1969
till after June 30, 1974 and vacancy until occupancy by the tenant in 1977
have not been substantiated and, in fact, are contradicted by MBR records
submitted by the tenant and by the owner's own ledger entries.
It cannot be ascertained from the record with any degree of certainty when
the apartment first became subject to stabilization nor who, in fact, was
the first stabilized tenant. Therefore, the matter cannot be treated as a
fair market rent appeal.
However, since the apartment is in the First Judicial Department and since
the owner has failed to submit a complete rental history, the tenant is
entitled to have her complaint determined by an approximate default
procedure under Section 42(a) of the former Code and the proceeding is
being remanded for the Administrator to do so after notice to all parties.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and judgment of
Court, it is
ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is, reopened; that
the Commissioner's prior order of March 15, 1990 be, and the same hereby
DOCKET NUMBER: SJR 4953; EB 410165-RT
is, revoked; that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted to the
extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator for further
processing in accord herewith; and that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby are, revoked.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
|
|