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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. GL110063RO
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO.ZGJ110009RP    

                                PETITIONER    : 

               On December 21, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on 
          November 18, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall 
          Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 88-11 34th Avenue, Queens, New York, Apartment No. 4N, 
          wherein the Rent Administrator affirmed a prior Rent Administrator's 
          order finding that the tenant had been overcharged in the total 
          amount of $40,816.48 including treble damages on that portion of the 
          overcharge occurring on and after April 1, 1984.

               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 in October, 1984, by 
          the filing of a tenant's objection to the apartment registration 
          including a rent overcharge complaint.  On February 27, 1990, the 
          Rent Administrator issued an order under docket 23844 finding a rent 
          overcharge of $40,816.48 on the basis that the owner had failed to 
          submit a rental history from April 1, 1980.  In said order, the 
          lawful stabilization rent was established at $177.19.

               The owner filed a petition for administrative review against 
          the February 27, 1990 Rent Administrator's order and said petition 
          was denied on July 12, 1991 under docket number EC110399RO.  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 judgment dated September 3, 1991, Justice 
          Angelo Graci ordered that the matter be remitted to the DHCR for the 
          limited purpose of setting forth the basis for the rent reduction - 
          that is how the rent was set at $177.19.  The finding of a rent 
          overcharge and the imposition of treble damages was upheld.


               In an order issued on April 27, 1992, under docket number SJR 
          5667, EC110399RO, the Commissioner modified his prior order and 
          opinion to show the basis for setting the rent at $177.19 - that 
          said rent was the lowest stabilized rent for the same size apartment 
          in the building - and finding the same overcharge - $40,816.48.  The 
          owner thereafter commenced a second Article 78 proceeding 
          challenging the Commissioner's order issued on April 27, 1992.  By 
          judgment dated February 25, 1993, Justice Lane denied the owner's 
          petition and upheld the Commissioner's order in its entirety.

               On November 18, 1992, under docket ZGJ110009RP, (the order 
          appealed herein), the Rent Administrator affirmed the earlier Rent 
          Administrator's order issued on February 27, 1990.

               In this appeal, the owner contends in substance that the owner 
          did submit the required rental history and that the imposition of 
          treble damages was not warranted.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 

               As shown by the aforementioned history of the case including 
          the two court proceedings, the owner has already appealed the 
          finding of rent overcharge in court and the court has upheld the 
          overcharge finding.  The owner is not permitted to relitigate the 
          issue a second time before the DHCR, but most pursue the matter in 
          a court appeal if it so chooses.  Further, the Rent Administrator 
          incorrectly issued a second order in this matter since the earlier 
          order was upheld in the DHCR review proceeding and in court.  
          Accordingly, such second Rent Administrator's order (the order under 
          review herein) is hereby revoked with the Rent Administrator's 
          original order issued on February 27, 1990 under docket number 23844 
          finding a rent overcharge of $40,816.48 remaining in full force and 

               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 

               The Commissioner has determined that the owner collected 
          overcharges of $40,816.48.  This order may, upon expiration of the 
          period for seeking review of this Order and Opinion pursuant to  
          Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and 
          enforced as a judgment or not in excess of twenty percent per month 
          thereof may be offset against any rent thereafter due the owner.  
          Where the tenant credits the overcharge, the tenant may add to the 


          overcharge, or where the tenant files this Order as a judgment, the 
          County Clerk may add to the overcharge, interest at the rate payable 
          on a judgment pursuant to Section 5004 of the Civil Practice Law and 
          Rules from the issuance date of the Rent Administrator's order to 
          the issuance date of the Commissioner's order.

               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 second order of the Rent 
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, revoked, with the original 
          Rent Administrator's order issued on February 27, 1990, under docket 
          number 23844 finding a rent overcharge of $40,816.48 remaining in 
          full force and effect.


                                          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