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 APPEAL
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. FB410003RO
Sarpro Realty Corp., DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
DOCKET NO. TC082383G
PETITIONER TENANT: J. & M. Santana
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
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,
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.
Joseph A. D'Agosta