Docket Nos. EK220210RT and FA220161RT
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 NOS. EK220210RT
FA220161RT
DISTRICT RENT
Charles Almon, ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NOS. DA220034BT
EE220012BT
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 19, 1990, the above-named tenant filed a petition
for administrative review, under Docket No. EK220210RT, of an
Administrator's order issued on November 9, 1990 under Docket No.
DA220034BT concerning the housing accommodation known as Apartment
4A, 116 Remsen Street, Brooklyn, New York. On January 18, 1991,
the above-named tenant filed a petition for administrative review,
under Docket No. FA220161RT, of an Administrator's order issued on
January 11, 1991 under Docket No. EE220012BT concerning the above-
mentioned premises.
Since the petitions involve common questions of law and fact,
the Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate the
proceedings for disposition herein.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
relevant to the issues raised by the petitions for administrative
review.
The issues in this proceedings are whether the Administrator
should have granted the subject landlord maximum base rent (M.B.R.)
increases for the 1988-1989 biennial cycle and the 1990-1991
biennial cycle.
On January 17, 1989, the subject tenant filed a challenge which
asserted, among other things, that the subject landlord
miscalculated the 1988-1989 M.B.R., and that in calculating the
1988-1989 M.B.R. the subject landlord improperly used the short
form (RN-26S).
On May 3, 1990, the subject tenant filed a challenge of the
990-1991 M.B.R. order of eligibility. In his challenge the subject
tenant, among other things, reiterated his allegations that the
Docket Nos. EK220210RT and FA220161RT
subject landlord has miscalculated the M.B.R.
On November 9, 1990 the Administrator issued the order under
review herein, under Docket No. DA220034BT, which affirmed the
M.B.R. order of eligibility for the 1988-1989 period effective
January 1, 1988.
On January 11, 1991 the Administrator issued the order under
review herein, under Docket No. EE220012BT, which affirmed the
M.B.R. order of eligibility for the 1990-1991 period effective
January 1, 1990.
In the tenant's petition filed under Docket No. EK220210RT he
asserts, among other things, that the landlord had been granted a
major capital improvement (M.C.I.) rent increase; that the above-
mentioned fact precludes the landlord from computing the M.B.R. for
the applicable period on a short form (RN-26S), and that the
landlord improperly calculated the M.B.R. for the subject
apartment.
In the tenant's petition filed under Docket No. FA220161RT he
states that: "That landlord has met violation certification
requirements was never contested by tenant. Tenant's complaint
concerns willful, incorrect figures landlord used to calculate 1990
MBR...."
After careful consideration, the Commissioner finds that the
tenant's petitions should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that in both of the aforementioned
challenges filed by the subject tenant it states that: "This Form
is used only to file objections to an Order of Eligibility, Maximum
Base Rents. This form may not be used to register complaints ...
Complaints of Rent Overcharge are filed on Form RA-89."
The Commissioner points out that the tenant in his petitions is
not disputing the fact that the landlord has met the violation
certification requirements to be eligible for increases in the
1988-1989 and 1990-1991 M.B.R.
As the tenant is not disputing the landlord's eligibility for
increases in the M.B.R., the Commissioner finds that the tenant
does not raise any issues which would warrant the revocation of the
Administrator's orders under review herein.
Assuming arguendo that the landlord calculating the M.B.R. on
the short form were improper, the Commissioner finds that this, by
itself, does not warrant a revocation of the Administrator's orders
under review herein. The Commissioner is of the opinion that the
issue of the landlord calculating the M.B.R. on a short form,
instead of a long form, only pertains to the proper calculation of
the M.B.R., and that that issue does not pertain to the subject
Docket Nos. EK220210RT and FA220161RT
landlord's M.B.R. eligibility requirements.
As to the other issues raised in the tenant's petitions, the
Commissioner finds that those issues also relate to the calculation
of the subject apartment's maximum rent and M.B.R., and not to the
landlord's M.B.R. eligibility requirements.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator's
orders under review herein should not be disturbed.
The Commissioner notes that the subject tenant filed an
overcharge complaint, dated January 1, 1993, which is currently
pending before the rent agency under Docket No. HA220109R. The
Commissioner is of the opinion that the issues raised in the
tenant's petitions pertaining to the calculation of the subject
apartment's M.B.R. and maximum rent will be determined by the
Administrator in the above-mentioned proceeding pending under
Docket No. HA220109R.
The Commissioner finds that this order and opinion is issued
without prejudice to the aforementioned tenant's overcharge
complaint currently pending under Docket No. HA220109R.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation
Law and Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that the tenant's petitions, filed under Docket NOS.
EK220210RT and FA220161RT, be, and the same hereby are, denied, and
that the Administrator's orders, issued under Docket NOS.
DA220034BT and EE220012BT, be, and the same hereby are, affirmed.
ISSUED:
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|