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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NO.FF110654RT
: DA110057RT
DRO DOCKET NO.ZDA110345R
HILARIO GONZALEZ ZBB110021R
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 5, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant timely
refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued
on April 12, 1991, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations
known as 3407 36 Avenue, Queens, New York, Apartment No. 2B wherein
the Rent Administrator determined that the initial stabilized rent
of $425.00 was not subject to challenge. On January 10, 1989, the
above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition for Administrative
Review against an order issued on December 23, 1988, by the Rent
Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York,
concerning the aforementioned housing accommodations wherein the
Rent Administrator determined that the initial stabilized rent was
$425.00 per month. These petitions are being consolidated for
disposition herein.
The Administrative Appeals are being determined pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2520.11(c) of the Rent Stabilization Code and
Article 15 of the Private Housing Finance Law.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's orders
were 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 appeals.
These proceedings were initiated when the tenant filed a rent
overcharge complaint in February, 1987 under docket BB110021R. In
such complaint, the tenant stated in substance that he first moved
to the subject apartment in July 1972 at a rental of $100.00 per
month and that the rent was raised to $250.00 per month as of
February 1982 and that the owner is now asking $425.00 per month due
to a building rehabilitation. The tenant further stated that the
rent should have been limited to $83.91 per month effective March
29, 1976 pursuant to a request for registration information answered
by the Office of Rent Control under docket number AD029951.
In response to the tenant's complaint, the owner stated in
FF110654RT, DA110057RT
substance that the rent was set in accordance with an order issued
on January 5, 1987 by the Department of Housing Preservation and
Development which set the rent at $425.00 effective January 1, 1987
and found that the subject apartment was subject to the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code effective January 1, 1987 pursuant to a
rehabilitation of the premises under Article 15 of the Private
Housing Finance Law. In support of such contention, the owner
submitted a copy of the January 5, 1987 order.
In the order issued under docket number ZBB110021R, the Rent
Administrator found that the Department of Housing Preservation and
Development had set the rent at $425.00 per month and that any
inquiries or complaints concerning such rent should be directed to
said Department.
In the petition filed under docket number DA110057RT, the
tenant alleges in substance that he was willfully overcharged prior
to January 1, 1981 and up through December 1986 and that he is
requesting treble damages.
On January 16, 1989 the tenant filed another rent overcharge
complaint under docket number DA110345R stating in substance that
his lawful rent should be $83.91 and he is being overcharged. In
response, the owner again submitted a copy of the January 5, 1987
order issued by the Department of Housing Preservation and
Development which set the rent at $425.00 per month.
In the order issued under docket number ZDA110345R, the Rent
Administrator determined that pursuant to the order of the
Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the subject
apartment was no longer subject to rent control and that the initial
stabilized rent of $425.00 is not subject to challenge.
In the petition filed under docket number FF110654RT, the
tenant alleges in substance that the rehabilitation work was never
completed in the subject apartment and therefore the subject
apartment should not have become rent stabilized.
In response to the tenant's petition, the owner stated in
substance that all repairs required to be made had been made.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should
be denied.
Section 2520.11(c) of the Rent Stabilization Code provides in
pertinent part that housing accommodations for which rentals are
fixed by the DHCR or HPD and after the establishment of initial
rents, the housing accommodations are made subject to the Rent
Stabilization Law pursuant to applicable law are subject to the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code.
In the instant case the order of the Department of Housing
Preservation and Development stated that by operation of law the
FF110654RT, DA110057RT
subject apartment was no longer subject to rent control but was rent
stabilized as of January 1, 1987 and set the rent of the subject
apartment at $425.00 effective as of January 1, 1987 due to a
rehabilitation of the subject premises under Article 15 of the
Private Housing Finance Law. Therefore the subject apartment became
rent stabilized as of January 1, 1987 pursuant to the provisions of
the Private Housing Finance Law and Section 2520.11 of the Rent
Stabilization Code. The proper remedy of the tenant who disagreed
with the Department of Housing Preservation and Development order
was to have appealed it directly and not to file an overcharge
complaint with the DHCR which lacks jurisdiction to overturn such
order. Further with regard to the tenant's contentions that he was
overcharged when the apartment was subject to rent control, the
tenant's remedy was to take a timely action in a court of competent
jurisdiction regarding such rent controlled overcharge.
Accordingly, the Rent Administrator's orders were correct and must
be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative review be, and
the same hereby are, denied, and, that the orders of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby are, affirmed.
ISSUED
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
FF110654RT, DA110057RT
|