STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner