GA210008RO


                                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. GA210008RO

                                          :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
          Anasae Realty Corp.                DOCKET NO.BG210419R
          c/o David Collason,                                  
                                             TENANT: Van-John Sfiridis        
                  
                            PETITIONER    : 
      ------------------------------------X                             


           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


      On January 7, 1992, the above named owner filed a Petition for 
      Administrative Review against an order issued on December 4, 1991 by the 
      Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 208 
      Washington Park, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No.2A wherein the Rent 
      Administrator found overcharges to the complainant tenant.

      The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the provisions 
      of Section 2526.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

      The issues herein are whether the owner was provided the opportunity to 
      respond to the DHCR in the proceeding before the Administrator and 
      whether the owner was liable for overcharges.

      The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has 
      carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues 
      raised by the administrative appeal.  

      This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing on July 23, 1987 
      of a rent overcharge complaint wherein the tenant indicated that he  
      commenced occupancy of the subject apartment on July 1, 1984 and that he 
      had not been served with a copy of the Initial Registration by the 
      owner.           

      The Commissioner notes that the complainant tenant was the first tenant 
      to commence occupancy of the subject apartment since April 1, 1984.
                        
      In Order Number BG210419R, the Rent Administrator determined that, due 
      to the owner's failure to file with the D.H.C.R the Initial Registration 
      and produce to the D.H.C.R in the proceeding before the Administrator 
      the requisite proof that it had served the complainant tenant with a 
      copy of the Initial Registration, the owner was prohibited from 
      collecting any rent increases above the lawful stabilization rent in 










          GA210008RO

      effect on April 1, 1984.  Further, the Administrator established the 
      lawful stabilization rents for the subject apartment since July 1, 1984 
      based on the Default Procedure, effecting a rent overcharge of 
      $19,921.38, including treble damages, since the Administrator determined 
      that the owner had defaulted in the requirement that it submit to the 
      D.H.C.R. in the proceeding before the Administrator the requisite rental 
      history dating back to April 1, 1980.

      In the petition, the owner contends, in essence, that it was not given 
      the opportunity before the Rent Administrator to respond in a timely 
      manner to the tenant's actions against said owner.  Further, the owner 
      disputes its liability for any overcharges to this tenant.

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

      On March 14, 1990, the DHCR sent a notice to the owner wherein the owner 
      was notified that the subject apartment was not properly registered.  
      The owner was requested therein to submit to the DHCR a copy of the RR1 
      Form together with certain documentation substantiating that said owner 
      had served a copy of the Initial Registration on the complainant tenant.

      On April 11, 1990, the DHCR sent a notice to the owner wherein the owner 
      was notified that, since it failed to produce to the DHCR the requisite 
      proof that the complainant tenant was served with a copy of the Initial 
      Registration, the tenant's overcharge complaint would be processed as a 
      timely challenge to the Initial Registration, requiring a rental history 
      of the subject apartment dating back to April 1, 1980.  The owner was 
      requested therein to submit to the DHCR such requisite rental history 
      within twenty-one days of the date of mailing of such notice.

      On October 22, 1991, the DHCR sent to the owner a Final Notice to Owner 
      Pending Default wherein the owner was notified that, among other things, 
      it failed to submit to the DHCR the requisite rental history dating back 
      to April 1, 1980 and that, if it did not submit such requisite rental 
      history within twenty-one days from the issue date of said notice, the 
      lawful stabilization rents for the subject apartment would then be based 
      upon the Default Procedure.

      The Commissioner finds that, based on the evidence in the record, the 
      owner was properly informed in a timely manner of its obligations in 
      connection with the processing of the tenant's overcharge complaint 
      before the Rent Administrator.  Wherefore, the owner was afforded the 
      opportunity to submit to the DHCR in a timely manner the requisite 
      information in the proceeding before the Administrator.

      Further, the commissioner finds that, since the owner failed to file 
      with the DHCR the Initial Registration and submit to the DHCR the 
      requisite proof that it had served a copy thereof on the complainant 
      tenant, the Rent Administrator properly disallowed all rent increases to 
      the lawful stabilization rent since April 1, 1984.  Also, due to the 
      owner's failure to produce to the DHCR such requisite proof of service, 
      the tenant's overcharge complaint was properly processed as a timely 
      challenge to the Initial Registration, requiring rent records dating 




      back to April 1, 1980.  Moreover, since the owner also failed to submit 


          GA210008RO

      the complete requisite rental history to the extent that rent records 
      for the period April 1, 1980 through June 30, 1984 were not submitted to 
      the D.H.C.R, the base rent calculated for the subject apartment was 
      determined by the Default Procedure, rather than an examination of the 
      requisite rental history.  Wherefore, the base rent determined by such 
      Default Procedure was established as of July 1, 1984, the commencement 
      date of this tenant's vacancy lease.  Guidelines rent increases for 
      subsequent renewal leases were properly disallowed.  The Commissioner 
      has determined that, based on the foregoing, the Administrator correctly 
      found the owner liable for overcharges, including treble damages, for 
      the period July 1, 1984 through July 31, 1989.

      Accordingly, the Rent Administrator's determination was warranted.

      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 the Rent Administrator's 
      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 the Rent Administratot's order.  The owner is 
      further directed to adjust subsequent rents to an amount no greater than 
      that determined by the Rent Administrator's order plus any lawful 
      increases.

      The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that the owner 
      collected overcharges of $19,921.38.  This Order may, upon expiration of 
      the period for seeking review of this Order and Opinion pursuant to 
      Article Seventy-eight of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and 
      enforced as a judgment.  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.
      A copy of this order is being sent to the current occupant of the 
      subject apartment.

      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.  

      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