AR Docket No. FD 110143-RO
                                  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    SJR No. 5960
          APPEAL OF
                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                 DOCKET NO.: FD 110143-RO
            65TH ASSOCIATES,                    
                                                 DRO DOCKET NO.: AK 110198-R

                                                 TENANT: Tarun Kumar Kundu 
                                PETITIONER     
          ----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On April  17,  1991,  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review of an order issued on March 18, 
          1991 by the District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall  Street,
          Jamaica, New York,  concerning  housing  accommodations  known  as
          Apartment 4D at 39-25 65th Street, Woodside, New York, wherein the 
          District  Rent  Administrator  determined  the  fair  market  rent
          pursuant to the special fair market rent guideline promulgated  by
          the New York City Rent Guidelines Board  for  use  in  calculating
          fair market rent appeals.

          Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed a petition in the Supreme 
          Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law  and  Rules
          requesting  that  the  "deemed   denial"   of   the   petitioner's
          administrative appeal be annulled.   By  stipulation  between  the
          parties, the  proceeding  was  withdrawn  on  condition  that  the
          Division of Housing and Community Renewal render  a  determination
          of the  petitioner's  administrative  appeal  within  60  days  of
          November 26, 1991.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence  in  the  record
          and has carefully considered that portion of the  record  relevant
          to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.

          This proceeding was originally commenced on November 10,  1986  by
          the filing of an overcharge complaint form  by  the  tenant.   The
          tenant took occupancy pursuant to a lease commencing September  1,
          1986 and expiring August 31, 1987 at a monthly rent of $600.00.

          In answer, the  owner  advised  that  the  subject  apartment  was
          vacancy decontrolled immediately prior to the tenant's  occupancy.
          The owner submitted an initial apartment registration  form  dated
          September 6, 1986, an undated Notice  of  Right  to  File  a  Fair
          Market Rent Appeal (notice form DC-2A) and a certified mail return 
          receipt signed by the tenant postmarked September 22, 1986.
          The owner was sent a fair market rent appeal package affording the 
          owner an opportunity to submit comparability data.   In  response,
          the owner cited apartments 6E, 5E and 6C in the  subject  building
          and submitted supporting documentation.







          AR Docket No. FD 110143-RO

          In the Order under appeal herein, the District Rent  Administrator
          adjusted the initial legal regulated rent by establishing  a  fair
          market  rent  of  $352.08  effective  September   1,   1986,   the
          commencement date  of  the  initial  rent  stabilized  lease,  and
          directed the owner to refund to the  tenant  excess  rent  in  the
          amount  of  $9,730.79.   The  Administrator  determined  that  the
          comparability data submitted by the owner was not  usable  because
          the owner failed to submit data for complete lines  of  apartments
          and for the subject line.

          In this petition,  the  owner  contends  that  the  District  Rent
          Administrator's Order is incorrect and should be modified  because
          the tenant failed to allege that his  initial  rent  exceeded  the
          fair market rent or to allege facts to support such allegation, as 
          required by the Rent Stabilization Law and Code.  The owner cites
          the case of Matter of East 7th Street Associates  (Supreme  Court,
          New York County), in which it was held that  the  DHCR  improperly
          converted an overcharge complaint to a fair  market  appeal  where
          the tenant never requested a fair market rent appeal and failed to 
          allege that his rent exceeded the fair market rent.  Additionally, 
          the owner contends that, upon information and belief,  the  tenant
          did not file a timely fair market rent appeal within  90  days  of
          service of the initial registration.  The owner also contends that 
          two of the apartments cited by the owner, apartments  6E  and  6C,
          which were decontrolled within 4 years of the  subject  apartment,
          should have been used in the comparability study; that  the  owner
          complied with the instructions  in  DHCR's  notice  by  submitting
          those  apartments  in  the  subject  building  which  it  believed
          qualified as comparable apartments; and that the DHCR should  have
          referred to registered rents on  file  with  the  DHCR  to  obtain
          rental information for all apartments in the line.  The owner also 
          asserts that, upon information and belief, the Maximum  Base  Rent
          (MBR) amount utilized by the  Administrator  was  lower  that  the
          actual MBR amount.

          In answer to this petition, the  tenant  asserts  that  the  owner
          failed to submit comparability data for the subject line, that the 
          apartments cited by the owner are not in the same vertical line as 
          the subject  apartment  and  are  not  the  same  as  the  subject
          apartment, that the tenant's complaint was timely filed  and  that
          the owner's petition should be denied.

          In reply to the tenant's answer, the owner asserts that  apartment
          6E qualifies as a comparable apartment because the initial rent is 
          no longer subject to challenge and that apartments 6E and  6C  are
          similar in  size  to  the  subject  apartment  and  are  therefore
          comparable to it.







          AR Docket No. FD 110143-RO

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this  petition  should  be
          denied.

          Regarding the owner's allegation that the tenant did  not  file  a
          timely fair market rent appeal,  the  record  indicates  that  the
          tenant timely filed his complaint on November 10, 1986, within  90
          days of service of the apartment registration  form  on  September
          22, 1986.

          While  the  tenant  filed  his  complaint  on  a  rent  overcharge
          complaint form, it is apparent from the  tenant's  complaint  that
          the tenant wished to challenge the initial legal  regulated  rent.
          The tenant filed his complaint two months after  taking  occupancy
          and stated therein that the prior tenant paid  $261.07  per  month
          rent  while  he  was  being  charged  $600.00  per   month.    The
          Commissioner  therefore  finds  that  the  Administrator  properly
          processed the case as a fair market rent appeal.

          The Commissioner finds that the tenant's fair market  rent  appeal
          is not materially defective because of  the  tenant's  failure  to
          allege that the rent exceeded the fair market rent for the subject 
          apartment.  Such allegation is implicit in the tenant's  complaint
          as indicated above.  The Commissioner further finds that since the 
          directive to tenants in Section 2522.3(b) of the Code  to  provide
          supporting facts is qualified by the phrase "to the best of his or 
          her information and belief," it cannot be read to  create  a  firm
          requirement and the tenant's failure to present  such  facts  does
          not warrant dismissal of the tenant's  fair  market  rent  appeal.
          [Accord: ARL 6666-L].

          Regarding the case of Matter of East 7th Street  Associates  cited
          by the owner, the Commissioner notes that a notice of  appeal  has
          been filed by the DHCR in that case.

          Regarding  the  owner's  submission  of  comparability  data,  the
          Commissioner finds that the owner failed to submit  data  required
          for complete lines of apartments, including the subject line.  The 
          Notice of Clarification included with the owner's fair market rent 
          appeal package,  in  accordance  with  longstanding  DHCR  policy,
          advised the owner that "all apartments  in  the  same  line  (rent
          controlled  or  rent  stabilized)   must   be   submitted."    The
          instruction sheet included with  the  owner's  package  states  as
          follows:

               List  the  legal  regulated  rents   for   similar   type
               apartments, for which the time  to  file  a  Fair  Market
               Rent Appeal has expired and no Fair  Market  Rent  Appeal
               is pending, or the  Fair  Market  Rent  Appeal  has  been
               finally determined, charged pursuant to a lease 
               commencing within a four year period prior to  or  a  one
               year period subsequent to the commencement of the 






          AR Docket No. FD 110143-RO


               initial lease of the challenged  apartment.   First  list
               such apartments in the subject building that are  in  the
               same line.   You  may,  if  you  wish,  list  rentals  as
               described above for such apartments not in the same  line
               provided (a) they have  the  same  number  of  rooms  and
               similar layout as the challenged apartment and (b) you 
               list all  such  apartments  within  that  line  not  just
               selected comparables.

               By "line of apartment" is meant all of the apartments in
               the  same  vertical  line  as  the  challenged  apartment
               within the subject building. 

               Please note that the submission of comparables  in  other
               lines is voluntary on your part; however,  they  may  not
               be considered unless you have submitted the  comparables,
               if any, in the same line as the challenged apartment.


          The instruction sheet also directs the owner to list in  column  1
          of the answer form all apartments that qualify in the  same  line.
          The owner was obligated to submit data for the subject line before 
          submitting data for other lines of apartments.  If  no  apartments
          in the subject line qualified as comparable apartments, and if  no
          apartments in the E line other than the apartments cited qualified 
          as comparable apartments, the owner was obligated to so advise the 
          Administrator.  This the owner failed to do so.

          Although the owner has requested that the  DHCR  utilize  its  own
          registration records to  complete  the  comparability  study,  the
          owner is required to submit the comparability data which the owner 
          wishes to have  considered  in  the  comparability  study.   Court
          precedent has held that where no comparability data is  available,
          the fair market rent may be determined based on the  special  fair
          market rent guidelines alone.  The DHCR is not obligated to search 
          its records for usable comparability data to complete  an  owner's
          incomplete submission, which might not be available in every case. 
          If an owner wishes to exercise the option of having  comparability
          data considered in the determination of the fair market rent,  the
          burden is on the owner to submit all the  required  data  for  the
          subject line and any additional lines the  owner  wishes  to  have
          considered.    The   Commissioner   therefore   finds   that   the
          Administrator properly did not utilize the  owner's  comparability
          data based on the owner's failure to make a complete submission.

          Regarding the owner's assertion  that  the  MBR  utilized  by  the
          Administrator  was  lower  than  the  actual   MBR   amount,   the
          Commissioner finds that the  MBR  utilized  by  the  Administrator
          properly conforms to DHCR rent control records and that the owner
          has  failed  to  submit  any  documentation  to  substantiate  its
          allegation of error.







          AR Docket No. FD 110143-RO


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is  denied  and
          the District Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby  is
          affirmed.

          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