STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA