CG 210287 RO
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. GC 210287 RO
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
Dr. Anthony G. Stigliano, DOCKET NO. ZDF 210385 R
TENANT: Walter Dufresne
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 5, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner timely refiled a
petition for administrative review against an order issued on
January 2, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,
Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as
59 Eighth Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. 1F, wherein the
Rent Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the
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 by the filing on June 28,
1989 of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant. The tenant
stated also that the owner had not registered the subject apartment.
In answer to the tenant's complaint, the owner submitted a rental
history from December 1, 1984, including copies of the apartment
registration from 1985 through 1989.
In Order Number ZDF 210385 R, the Rent Administrator determined
that, due to the owner's failure to submit a complete rental
history, including the 1984 apartment registration with proof of
service on the occupying tenant, the tenant had been overcharged in
the amount of $30,862.43, inclusive of excess security and treble
damages, and directed the owner to refund such overcharge to the
tenant as well as to reduce the rent.
In this petition, the owner contends that because the statutory rent
CG 210287 RO
controlled tenant vacated the premises as of September 24, 1982, the
overcharge complaint should have been processed as a fair market
rent appeal, which would obviate the application of treble damages.
The owner further contends that he made extensive improvements in
the subject apartment prior to this tenant's tenancy for which he
should be permitted a rent increase. Finally, the owner contends
that it was unnecessary to register the apartment in 1984 because it
wa vacant but that the annual building registration has been filed
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
Review of the record discloses that the owner was advised on
November 29, 1991 that although he was not required to register a
vacant apartment on April 1, 1984, he was required to file an
initial registration (amended RR-1) with proof of service on the
first rent stabilized tenant within ninety (90) days of the move-in
date when the apartment was rented. The record reveals that the
owner did not do so and did not submit any proof establishing that
the subject apartment was in fact vacant on April 1, 1984.
Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code limits the scope of
administrative review to facts or evidence which were before the
Rent Administrator. The owner's remaining contentions, i.e. fair
market rent appeal and improvements were not raised for
consideration by the Administrator. Accordingly, it would be
inappropriate to consider them in this appeal. Further the tenant
herein was clearly not the first rent stabilized tenant and was it
was therefore proper for the Rent Administrator to process the
tenant's overcharge complaint and not consider it a challenge to the
initial stabilized rent.
Because this determination concerns lawful rents only through March
30, 1991, the owner is cautioned to adjust subsequent rents to a
amount no greater than that determined by the Rent Administrator's
order plus any lawful increases.
The Commissioner notes that the complaining tenant is no longer in
occupancy of the subject apartment. Therefore, a copy of this order
is being sent to the tenant currently in occupancy.
This order may, upon the expiration of the period in which the owner
may institute a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil
Practice Law and Rules, be filed and enforced in the same manner as
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
CG 210287 RO
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner