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.:
K. & P. MANAGEMENT, DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER TENANT: LORI BULLOCK
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 26, 1990, the above-named owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on June 22, 1990,
by a District Administrator concerning housing accommodations
known as Apartment 67 at 640 West 139th Street, New York, New
York, wherein the Administrator determined that the tenant had
been overcharged in the amount of $27,608.91, including treble
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing of a rent
overcharge complaint by the tenant on August 18, 1987.
The tenant took occupancy pursuant to a one year lease commencing
May 12, 1986, and expiring April 30, 1987, at a monthly rent of
The initial legal registered rent of the subject apartment was
$233.23, which was the rent paid by the tenant in occupancy on
April 1, 1984.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and was
directed to submit a complete rent history from the base date,
including copies of all leases. Subsequently, the owner was
again requested to submit this documentation. The owner failed
to comply with this request.
In Order No. BH 410239-R issued on June 22, 1990, the Rent
Administrator determined that the tenant had been overcharged in
the amount of $27,608.91, including treble damages. It was
further determined that since the owner failed to submit prior
leases, all rent increases prior to the complainant's May 1, 1986
vacancy lease were denied.
In his petition, dated July 20, 1990, the owner claims that the
apartment had been partially renovated prior to the complainant's
occupancy, but that he is requesting additional time to collect
the evidence to prove this.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
The petitioner fails to allege any mistake or impropriety by the
Administrator that could impugn the order. Furthermore, the
Commissioner may not consider new evidence for the first time on
appeal absent a showing that the party could not have reasonably
submitted the evidence to the Rent Administrator. Since the
owner has made no such showing, the request for additional time
to present such evidence must therefore be denied.
In this regard, the Commissioner finds that the owner had suf-
ficient notice that he was required to submit all rent records
including bills for improvements.
Since the complainant has terminated her occupancy of the subject
apartment, a copy of this Order and Opinion will also be sent to
the current tenant in occupancy.
This order may, upon the expiration of the period in which the
owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and enforced by the tenant
in the same manner as a judgment or not in excess of twenty
percent thereof per month may be offset against any rent there-
after due the owner.
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 Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA