DHCR Decisions          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