OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                                DOCKET NO.EA410130RO
                                              :    DRO DOCKET NO.TA2378
                 95 River Company                  TENANT:Nicholas Cobbs

                               PETITIONER     :


          On January 22, 1990, the above-named owner filed a  Petition  for
          Administrative Review against an order issued on December 27, 1989 
          by a Rent Administrator concerning housing accommodations known as 
          Apartment 19-L,230 Riverside Drive, New York, New York, wherein the 
          Rent Administrator determined the fair market rent pursuant to  a
          comparability study and the special fair market  rent  guidelines
          promulgated by the New York City Rent Guidelines Board for use in 
          calculating fair market rent appeals.

          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.

          The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was initiated prior to 
          April 1, 1984.  Sections 2526.1 (a) (4) and 2521.1 (d) of the Rent 
          Stabilization  Code  (effective  May  1,  1987)  governing   rent
          overcharge  and  fair  market  rent  proceedings   provide   that
          determination of these matters be based  upon  the  law  or  code
          provisions in  effect  on  March  31,  1984.   Therefore,  unless
          otherwise indicated, any reference in this order and  opinion  to
          Sections of the Rent Stabilization Code is to the Code in effect on 
          April 30, 1987. 

          The proceeding was initiated by the tenant on January 3, 1975  by
          filing a fair market rent  appeal.   The  tenant  took  occupancy
          pursuant to a one year lease commencing May 1, 1974 and  expiring
          April 30, 1975 at a monthly rent of $285.00.
          In a submission dated March 19, 1979, the owner cited  apartments
          4L, 9L, 11L and 15L, without a terrace, in the subject building to 
          be used for comparability study and included a June 30, 1974 rent 


          roll for the subject line.  However, the owner contended that the 
          subject apartment was unique in that it was the only apartment with 
          a terrace and three views.

          By notice dated September 13, 1989, the  owner  was  afforded  an
          opportunity to submit June 30, 1974 or updated comparability data.

          By notice dated October 13, 1989, the owner was more specifically 
          afforded an opportunity  to  submit  June  30,  1974  or  updated
          comparables for any decontrolled 3-room apartments with a terrace 
          in the vicinity.

          By letter dated October 27, 1989, the owner requested an extension 
          of time to respond.  The Administrator did not  respond  to  this
          request.  A second request for an extension,  dated  December  6,
          1989, was denied by letter dated December 8, 1989.  However, this 
          letter was sent to the owner's attorney at an incorrect address and 
          was returned to the DHCR by the post office.   In  its  extension
          requests, the owner contended that its rent records were sealed by 
          the court in a tax evasion proceeding, that with the conclusion of 
          the trial the documents would be made available, but that it would 
          take some time to locate and return the relevant documents. 

          In Order Number TA2378, issued on December  27,  1989,  the  Rent
          Administrator established the initial lawful stabilized  rent  as
          $272.67 per month effective May 1, 1974, and calculated excess rent 
          in the amount of $147.96.  The Administrator utilized  apartments
          4L, 9L and 11L in the comparability study in determining the fair 
          market rent.

          In its petition the owner contends that the DHCR never notified the 
          owner or the owner's attorney that  the  second  request  for  an
          extension was denied, thereby violating the owner's  due  process
          rights.  The owner also states that the necessary files are still 
          sealed and that an extension of time is required  to  permit  the
          owner to search for and submit the necessary data at the conclusion 
          of the ongoing court proceeding.

          The Commissioner is of the considered opinion that this  petition
          should be denied.

          Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization  Code  provides  that  a
          review pursuant to this part should be limited to facts or evidence 
          before a Rent Administrator as raised in the petition.  Where the 
          petitioner submits with the petition certain  facts  or  evidence
          which he or she establishes could not reasonably have been offered 
          or included in the proceeding prior to the issuance of the  order
          being appealed, the proceeding may be remanded for redetermination 
          to the Rent Administrator to consider such facts or evidence.

          In the instant case, the owner claims that its due process rights 
          were denied by the Administrator's failure to notify the owner of 


          the denial of its request for an  extension  of  time  to  submit
          comparability data.  The December 8, 1989  denial  notice,  which
          stated that a determination would be made based on the evidence in 
          the record, was not received by the owner's attorney. However, the 
          owner has failed either in its communications to the Administrator 
          or on Administrative  appeal  to  document  its  allegation  that
          additional comparability data could not have been timely submitted 
          due to the sealing of rent records during a court proceeding.  In 
          addition, it is noted that comparability data  submitted  by  the
          owner was used by the Administrator in determining the fair market 
          rent and that no additional comparability data has been submitted 
          by the owner to date.  The Commissioner therefore finds that there 
          has been no denial of due process in  this  case,  and  that  the
          owner's petition should be denied.  

          The tenant vacated the subject apartment in July 1981.  A copy of 
          this order and opinion is being sent to the current occupant of the 
          subject apartment. 
          The owner is directed to reflect the findings and  determinations
          made in this order on all future registration statements, including 
          those for the current year if not already filed, citing this order 
          as the basis for the change.  Registration statements already  on
          file, however, should not be amended to reflect the findings  and
          determinations made in this order.  The owner is further directed 
          to adjust subsequent rents to an  amount  no  greater  than  that
          determined by this order plus any lawful increases.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is

          ORDERED, that the owner's petition be and  the  same  hereby  is,
          denied, and that the Administrator's order be and the same hereby 
          is, affirmed.


                                                   JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                   Deputy Commissioner



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