FL 610128-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  SJR No.: 6306
      IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. FL 610128-RO

                                          :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
           Godwin Realty Assoc.,             DOCKET NO. CA 610233-R
                                            
                                             TENANT: Jose Rojas               
           

                            PETITIONER    : 
      ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

      The above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for Administrative 
      Review against an order issued on November 15, 1991, by the Rent 
      Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 3025 Godwin 
      Terrace, Bronx, New York, Apartment No. 1M, wherein the Rent 
      Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the tenant.

      By order issued on January 17, 1992, the Commissioner dismissed the 
      owner's petition as untimely filed.

      The owner thereafter commenced a proceeding in Supreme Court pursuant to 
      Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules challenging the 
      Commissioner's order.  By order of Justice Lonschein dated May 8, 1992, 
      the proceeding was remitted to the DHCR for further processing.

      The owner has submitted proof of mailing of the petition to the DHCR on 
      December 19, 1991, within 35 days of the issuance of the Administrator's 
      order.  Therefore it is found that the petition was timely filed and the 
      petition will be considered on the merits.

      The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the provisions 
      of Section 2526.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

      The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was 
      warranted.

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

      This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing in January, 1988 
      of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant.  

      In answer to the tenant's complaint, the owner submitted a rental 
      history dating from the tenant's occupancy in February, 1981.  The owner 
      failed to prove service of the initial registration (RR-1) on the 
      tenant, and failed to submit a lease history dating from April 1, 1980, 
      although requested to do so.








          FL 610128-RO

      In Order Number CA 610233-R, the Rent Administrator determined that, due 
      to the owner's failure to submit a complete rental history, the tenant 
      had been overcharged in the amount of $31,363.89, including treble 
      damages and excess security, and directed the owner to refund such 
      overcharge to the tenant as well as to reduce the rent.

      In its petition, the owner contended that there was no overcharge, 
      basing this on a lease it was submitting for the subject apartment for 
      the period from February, 1978 to February, 1980.  The owner offered no 
      explanation for not submitting the lease below.

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

      In the instant case, the owner challenges the Administrator's order by 
      submitting a prior lease for the first time on appeal and using it to 
      try to establish the rent on April 1, 1980.  However, it has been 
      repeatedly held that a Petition for Administrative Review is not a de 
      novo proceeding but is restricted to the evidence properly before the 
      Administrator unless good cause is shown to justify a late submission.  
      Although the owner was directed by the Administrator to submit proof of 
      the rent on April 1, 1980, the owner failed to do this.  The lease that 
      was submitted on administrative appeal was admittedly in the possession 
      of the owner while the proceeding was before the Administrator, but the 
      owner offers no explanation for its failure to submit this lease to the 
      Administrator.

      Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly found 
      that the owner had defaulted in its obligation to provide a full rental 
      history and, on the basis of the evidence in the record, properly 
      computed the legal regulated rent in accordance with established default 
      procedures.

      This order may, upon the expiration of the period in which the owner may 
      institute a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law 
      and Rules, be filed and enforced in the same manner as a judgment or not 
      in excess of twenty percent per month thereof may be offset against any 
      rent thereafter due the owner.

      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.



      ISSUED:



                                                                    
                                      JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Acting Deputy Commissioner