STATE OF NEW YORK
                          OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                   GERTZ PLAZA
                             92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                             JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. FA110225RO

                                          :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
           Nick Tsoumpariotis,               DOCKET NO. 59128
                                             TENANT: J. Visser                
                            PETITIONER    : 


      On January 23, 1991, the above-referenced owner filed a Petition for 
      Administrative Review against an order issued on December 19, 1990, by 
      a Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known as    
      45-29 42nd Street, Sunnyside, New York, Apartment No. 2E, wherein the 
      Administrator determined the "fair market rent" of those accommodations.

      The underlying proceeding was commenced by the 1985 filing of a Tenant's 
      Objection to Rent/Services Registration, in which the tenant stated that 
      he was appealing the rent charged.  In January 1988, the owner filed his 
      Answer to Fair Market Rent Challenge.  In April of 1990 the 
      Administrator noted that the file contained an apparent photocopy of a 
      notarized statement, dated January 10, 1986, to the effect that the 
      tenant, satisfied that there was no overcharge, was thereby withdrawing 
      his complaint.  

      When the Administrator asked the tenant if he indeed wished to withdraw 
      same, the tenant answered in the negative, stating inter alia that he 
      had not made or signed that statement, his signature thereon being a 
      forgery.  (That response does not appear to have been sent to the 

      In August of 1990 the petitioner wrote to the Administrator that in 
      order to "justify" the complainant's rent he would have to speak with 
      "the previous landlord," (then "on vacation").  Later that month the 
      Administrator sent the owner a "Summary Notice" stating: 

      "Had the subject apartment remained under rent control the 1985, Maximum 
      Rent for the subject apartment would have been $317.01.

      "Therefore, the fair market rent for the subject apartment will be 
      determined on the basis of the 1985, Maximum Rent increased by the 
      appropriate Special Fair Market Rent Guidelines Order.

      "If you have any comments[,] [p]lease reply within 21 days.  


      "NOTE: This is not a final determination," (Emphasis in original.)

      In November, 1990, the Administrator sent the owner an Amended Summary 
      Notice stating in pertinent part: "Had the subject apartment remained 
      under rent control the 1984 Maximum Rent ... would have been $247.23. 
      *** The fair market rent ... will be determined on the basis of the 1984 
      Maximum Rent ... *** If you have any comments, please reply... ."

      The above-referenced and aforementioned Administrator's order ensued, 
      the Rent Administrator therein adjusting the initial legal regulated 
      rent, by establishing a fair market rent of $294.80 effective May 1, 
      1985, the commencement date of the initial rent-stabilized lease.  In 
      addition, the Rent Administrator determined that the tenant had paid 
      excess rent of $7,406.40 through April 30, 1987, and directed the owner 
      to refund such excess rent to the tenant.

      In this petition, the owner first cites the aforementioned first Summary 
      Notice as authority for the contention that the "base rent" used by the 
      Administrator was incorrect.  

      Along with his petition, the owner has submitted copies of apparent 
      documentation of alleged expenditures by him that would have permitted 
      a rental increase for the subject apartment, arguing: that when the 
      previous owner submitted the aforementioned purported withdrawal of his 
      complaint, he believed that no "further document[ation] to support the 
      legality of the first rent charged was ... necessary"; and that because 
      the Rent Administrator did not take that withdrawal "under 
      consideration,"  the petitioner, having now "obtain[ed] all exist[ing] 
      documents from previous owner," should be allowed to present 
      them at this time.

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

      Turning to the first citation of error, it is true that the first 
      Summary Notice sent to the owner differs from the Administrator's order 
      in terms of the Maximum Base Rent under the rent-control system ("MBR") 
      used to determine the initial rent under rent stabilization.  The Notice 
      itself states, however, that it is not a final order; moreover it was 

      superseded by the aforementioned amended version, and petitioner states 
      no reason to prefer the figure used in the first notice to that in the 
      Administrator's order.  Finally, the Commissioner's recomputation of the 
      MBRs herein reveals that the Administrator did not err in this regard.

      The remainder of the PAR consists in essence of a plea for the 
      Commissioner to accept certain documentation that was not presented to 
      the Administrator.  Seeking an exception to the rule that the 
      Commissioner will not accept such a tardy submission, the owner asserts 
      that he was misled into delay by the aforementioned purported withdrawal 
      of the tenant's complaint, which the previous owner had placed in the 
      record.  Petitioner's explanation, however, is not meritorious.  The 
      history set forth above demonstrates that after the purported date of 
      that withdrawal, communications from the Administrator would have made 
      it very difficult for the owner to believe the proceeding was not going 
      forward, and communications from the owner made it obvious that in fact 
      he knew it was.  Petitioner having presented no other reason for the 
      Commissioner to accept evidence that could have been submitted to the 


      Administrator, his purported documentation, submitted to justify a 
      rental increase, will not be considered now on appeal.  Petitioner has 
      in sum presented no reason to upset the Administrator's order.

      The owner is directed to roll back the rent to the lawful stabilized 
      rent consistent with this decision and to refund the excess rent 
      collected from the complainant.

      The owner is directed to reflect the findings and determinations made in 
      this order on all future registration statements, including those for 
      the current year if not already filed, citing this order as the basis 
      for the change.  Registration statements already on file, however, 
      should not be amended to reflect the findings and determinations made in 
      this order.    The owner is further directed to adjust subsequent rents 
      to an amount no greater than that determined by this order plus any 
      lawful increases.

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

      ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and the same 
      hereby is, denied, and, that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and 
      the same hereby is, affirmed.  A copy of this order is being sent to the 
      current occupant of the accommodations.


                                      JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Deputy Commissioner

                               COVERING MEMORANDUM


      ARU DOCKET NO.: FA110225RO

      DRO DOCKET NO./ORDER NO.: 59128

      TENANT(S): J. Visser

      OWNER: N. Tsoumpariotis


      PREMISES: 45-29 42nd Street, Apt. 2E, Sunnyside


           FMRA. "Summary Notice" to owner used higher MBR figure than 
           did Administrator's order.  Owner cites that as error, and 
           also says he should be allowed -- due to withdrawal of 
           complaint sent to Administrator -- to submit late evidence of 
           vacancy improvements.  Decision: Administrator's order (not 
           Summary Notice) had MBR right.  No valid excuse for not 
           submitting documentation to Administrator.   LR



      Processing Attorney:                                              

      Supervising Attorney:                                            

      Bureau Chief:                                                    

      Deputy Commissioner:                                             

      Mailed Copies of Order and Determination to:

                          Tenant's Atty                      
                          Owner's Atty                       

                          Date:             : By             

                                      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