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





    

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