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.:
ROSE REALTY COMPANY,
DRO DOCKET NO.:
----------------------------------x TENANT: MAURICE GROSSINGER
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 5, 1991, the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator
issued on March 1, 1991 concerning the housing accommodations known
as Apartment 5-V located at 1120 Brighton Beach Avenue, Brooklyn,
New York. The Administrator determined that the tenant had been
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully considered
that portion of the record relevant to the issues raised by the
The tenant commenced this proceeding on October 12, 1989 by filing a
Complaint of Rent Overcharge. The tenant alleged that the owner was
collecting an additional $15.00 per month surcharge for no reason, in
addition to the correct guidelines increase.
In answer to the complaint the owner stated that the additional
surcharge was being removed and the tenant's rent was being adjusted
On January 7, 1991, the owner was sent a final notice advising that
the rent would be frozen at $356.36 per month for the lease term from
September 1, 1988 to August 31, 1990 because the subject apartment
had not been registered for 1989 and 1990. The owner was also
advised that an overcharge of $15.00 per month for 24 months had been
determined, and that treble damages would be imposed resulting in a
total overcharge of $1,095.00. The owner was afforded 21 days to
answer the notice but no response was received.
The Administrator's order repeated the determination made in the
final notice and ordered the owner to refund $1,095 to the tenant.
On appeal the owner states that the decision of the Administrator was
contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious and states "addendum to
follow." No such addendum was ever received.
After careful consideration of the evidence in the record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The petitioner states no valid grounds for reversal of the Adminis-
trator's order. A review of the record reveals that the Adminis-
trator properly determined the lawful rent and total overcharges due
the tenant and the owner has not stated any specific errors in that
determination. Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
This order may be enforced in the same manner as a judgement of the
THEREFORE, pursuant to 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 affirmed.