Docket Number: FA 210345-RT
                                 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
        APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: FA 210345-RT 
                                            :  
             YEFIM VIRKERMAN,                  DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                               DOCKET NOS.: EE 210032-RP 
                              PETITIONER    :               (K-002558-R)
        ------------------------------------X                           
          
           ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                    IN PART AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER

        On January  30,  1991  the  above-named  petitioner-tenant  filed  a
        Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  of  the  Rent
        Administrator issued January 2, 1991.  The order  concerned  housing
        accommodations known as Apartment D-7 located at 3096  Brighton  6th
        Street,  Brooklyn,  N.Y.   The   Administrator   issued   an   order
        establishing the initial  legal  regulated  rent  and  finding  that
        petitioner had been charged excess rent.

        The Commissioner has reviewed the record  and  carefully  considered
        that portion relevant to the issues raised by this appeal.

        The proceeding was originally commenced on  July  8,  1985,  by  the
        filing of a complaint of rent overcharge  by  the  tenant  who  took
        occupancy pursuant to a  lease  which  commenced  May  1,  1984  and
        expired April 30, 1986, at a monthly rental of $365.00.  The  tenant
        stated that the previous tenant was Rent Controlled and paid a  much
        lower rent.  The tenant also stated that the owner  had  not  served
        him with the Apartment Registration (form RR-1).

        The Administrator issued an order dismissing the tenant's  complaint
        on the ground that he had not filed a timely challenge to  the  1984
        apartment registration.

        Petitioner filed an administrative  appeal  of  the  Administrator's
        order.  In an order and opinion issued May 7, 1990, (Docket N .  BB-
        210068-RT),  the  Commissioner  remanded  the  proceeding   to   the
        Administrator to be processed as a Fair Market Rent Appeal.

        The Administrator issued a new order on remand.  In that  order  the
        Administrator found that the statutory  criteria  for  processing  a
        Fair Market Rent Appeal had been met.  The owner  was  requested  to
        submit either June 30, 1974 (base date of ETPA) free market rents or 
        rental history data for apartments recently rented on the  post-ETPA
        "Free Market."  The owner failed to respond with the necessary data.

        The Administrator found that the Maximum  Base  Rent  (MBR)  of  the
        subject apartment was $260.50 on  April  30,  1984.   Utilizing  the
        Special Fair Market Guidelines the Administrator determined that the 
        initial  legal  regulated  rent  was  $330.45  ($260.50  +  20%  per
        Guideline 15 + $17.85 fuel cost).  Total excess rent of $863.75  was
        calculated including excess security.






          Docket Number: FA 210345-RT

        On appeal the tenant makes two arguments in urging  modification  of
        the Administrator's order.  First, he claims that the April 1,  1984
        base rent was less than the $260.50 set forth by the  Administrator.
        Second, the tenant claims that he resided in the apartment for  more
        than the twenty-four months that the Administrator  determined  and,
        thus the amount of overcharge should have been computed  up  to  the
        date he vacated the apartment.  The owner did not file  a  response.
        In response to a request dated August 1, 1991, the tenant  submitted
        copies of  his  renewal  leases  and  stated  that  he  vacated  the
        apartment in February 1988.

        After careful consideration  of  the  evidence  in  the  record  the
        Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should  be  granted
        in part.

        The tenant's argument that the  Administrator  should  have  used  a
        lower  base  rent  than  $260.50  is  incorrect.   Pursuant  to  the
        Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, as amended by  Chapter  403
        of the Laws of 1983, a Fair Market Rent is determined on  the  basis
        of 2 criteria:  (1) a special guidelines order  promulgated  by  the
        New York City Rent Guidelines Board solely for  use  in  determining
        Fair Market Rents; and (2) by "rents  generally  prevailing  in  the
        same  area  for  substantially  similar   housing   accommodations,"
        language commonly referred to as "comparability."  

        Since the owner herein failed to furnish the required  comparability
        date, the Fair Market Rent was determined solely on the basis of the 
        Special Fair Market Rent Guidelines.  Pursuant to Special Guidelines 
        Order Number 15 which was in effect when the tenant took  occupancy,
        the 1982 Maximum Base Rent of $260.50 was adjusted by an  additional
        20%, resulting in a Fair Market Rent of $312.60  plus  a  fuel  cost
        adjustment of $17.85 for a total of  $330.45.   Since  the  tenant's
        initial rent of $365.00 exceeded the Fair Market Rent,  the  initial
        legal regulated rent was adjusted from $365.00 to  $330.45  and  the
        overcharges were computed accordingly.

        A review of the record  reveals  that  the  Administrator  correctly
        determined the 1982 Maximum Base  Rent  and  correctly  applied  the
        provisions of Special Guidelines Order Number 15 in determining  the
        Fair Market Rent.  The tenant has not specified why a  lower  amount
        should have been used and has not submitted any evidence to  support
        his contention.  The tenant is advised,  however,  that  the  actual
        rent the prior rent controlled  tenant  may  have  paid  is  not  an
        appropriate factor for consideration in determining  a  Fair  Market
        Rent.







          Docket Number: FA 210345-RT
        Petitioner's second argument, however, does have merit.   Petitioner
        notified the Administrator that he had  vacated  the  apartment  but
        there is no evidence in the record that  the  tenant  was  asked  to
        submit updated rental information subsequent to  his  initial  lease
        and up until the  date  he  moved.   The  tenant  has  provided  the
        information to the Commissioner and the overcharge calculations  are
        modified accordingly as set forth in the  annexed  rent  calculation
        chart.  The revised total overcharge amount is  $1,650.17  including
        excess security.  This order may be docketed  and  enforced  in  the
        same manner as an order of the Supreme Court.

        THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

        ORDERED, that the petition be, and the same hereby  is,  granted  in
        part and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
        is, modified in accordance with this order and opinion.

        ISSUED:




                                                                      
                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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