GA210038RO
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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. GA210038RO
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
George Beverly Corp., DOCKET NO. AF210166R
TENANT: Kathleen Williams
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 10, 1992, the above-named owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review ("PAR") against an order of a Rent Administrator
issued on December 6, 1991, concerning the housing accommodations known
as 803 Beverly Road, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. 4W, wherein the
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.
This proceeding had its genesis in the Tenant's Complaint of Rent
Overcharges and/or Excess Security Deposit of June 23, 1986, in which
the tenant stated that she had first occupied the accommodations in
November of 1985, and that she had not been served with a copy of the
Registration Form therefor. The complaint was served on The Gardenia
Organization, the owner at that time, which responded by demonstrating
that the apartment had been subject to rent control immediately prior to
the complainant's occupancy.
In 1991 the complaint was served on the above-named petitioner-owner,
along with instructions: that it constituted "a challenge to the Fair
Market Rent"; to "read the instructions carefully"; that a component of
the calculation of the aforementioned fair market rent could be (at the
owner's option) "a comparability study of rents for the subject line and
building"; that if the owner chose to submit "comparability data,"
evidence of each rent had to be accompanied by proof (a) that a form DC-
2 had been served on the first rent-stabilized tenant, who did not
challenge its contents within 90 days thereafter, or whose challenge had
been resolved by this Division or (b) that the tenant in occupancy on
April 1, 1984, having received a copy of the apartment registration, had
either failed to challenge same within 90 days or had had such challenge
resolved as above; and inter alia, that if the owner did not submit
comparability data, the fair market rent would be determined solely by
applying certain guidelines (enclosed with the instructions) to the
"maximum rent" under Rent Control.
In October of 1991 the Administrator sent the owner a Summary Notice
stating that the rent herein would in fact be determined in the last-
GA210038RO
mentioned manner, but adding that the Notice was not a final
determination and that the owner had 21 days to comment thereon.
The next month the Administrator received from the owner a statement
pertaining to the stabilization status and registration history of the
premises.
The ensuing order, here appealed, states inter alia that because the
owner failed to submit the requested comparability data, the fair market
rent has been determined solely by reference to the pertinent "special
guidelines order." It is noted that the tenant vacated the subject
apartment during the processing of this proceeding.
Petitioner now seeks "modification at the very least" of that order,
based on rent-roll records submitted with the PAR. By implication
petitioner is requesting that a comparability study be utilized in
determining the complainant's fair market rent.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
petition should be denied.
Petitioner's arguments, as to why its submission of other rents should
be accepted at this late stage of the proceedings, need not be
discussed. That is because even if the Commissioner were to excuse the
tardiness of this proffer, its content is insufficient to aid the
owner's case.
As the owner was informed (see page 1 above), evidence of each
comparable rent must be accompanied by proof that a tenant was served
with a 1984 apartment registration or a form DC-2, and that no challenge
by that tenant to the rent stated therein remains available. Because
petitioner has submitted no such proof, the aforementioned rent rolls,
even considered as timely submissions, cannot form the basis of a
comparability study. The rolls fail to show, moreover, when the
"comparable" apartments became subject to rent stabilization, which is
another prerequisite to the use of their rents in such a study. There
is thus no reason to disturb the Administrator's determination.
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 Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied; the Rent
Administrator's order, setting the lawful rent -- through October 22,
1986 -- at $292.11, is hereby affirmed. A copy of this order is being
sent to the current occupant of the subject apartment.
GA210038RO
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
