FB410003RO
                                  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 APPEAL
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO. FB410003RO

                                             
               Sarpro Realty Corp.,               DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
                                                  DOCKET NO. TC082383G
                                        
                                   PETITIONER     TENANT: J. & M. Santana
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                AFTER RECONSIDERATION


          On January 31, 1991, the above-named owner filed a Petition for 
          Administrative Review ("PAR") against an order issued on January 
          12, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, 
          Jamaica, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator  determined that 
          the owner had overcharged the tenant of the housing accommodations 
          known as apartment 41, 563 West 191st Street, New York, New York.

          This proceeding had originated with the filing in March, 1984, of 
          a rent-overcharge complaint.  Having received no owner's response 
          thereto, the Administrator determined, due to the owner's failure 
          to submit a complete rental history, that the tenant had been 
          overcharged in the amount of $4,550.34, and directed the owner to 
          refund that overcharge as well as to reduce the rent.

          The aforementioned PAR ensued.  On March 14, 1991, the Commissioner 
          dismissed it on procedural grounds.  The owner then filed a 
          petition in the Supreme Court, pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil 
          Practice Law and Rules, requesting that the dismissal order be 
          annulled.  The PAR was subsequently remitted to the DHCR for 
          consideration of the merits of the overcharge determination, 
          including consideration of all documentary evidence submitted by 
          the owner during the appeal proceeding.

          That consideration resulted in a Commissioner's determination, 
          issued on April 15, 1992 -- based largely on documents prepared by 
          the previous owner and submitted by the owner herein pertaining to 
          the "decontrol" date of the apartment and to a subsequent rent- 
          stabilized tenancy proceeding the complainant's -- drastically 
          reducing the overcharge finding herein.  The tenant then sought 
          reconsideration of that determination, based on evidence that the 
          aforementioned intervening tenancy was fictitious.  The ensuing 
          investigation conducted by the Enforcement Section of the DHCR has 












          FB410003RO

          confirmed the allegations of the tenant, revealing that the 
          aforementioned documents had been fabricated by the previous owner.

          It is now clear, therefore, that the owner has never submitted a 
          complete rental history, so that the Administrator's "default" 
          determination, based precisely on such failure, should be upheld.

          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 this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed and that the Commissioner's prior Order and Opinion issued 
          on April 15, 1992 be, and the same hereby is, revoked.

          ISSUED:

                                                                             
                                             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