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.: AK 410094-RT
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: ZL 004274-R
       LAURA GRAUP
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             


           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


     On November 18, 1986 the above-named petitioner-tenant  filed  a  Petition
     for Administrative Review against an order issued on October 16,  1986  by
     the Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New  York
     concerning the housing accommodation  known  as   133  East  17th  Street,
     Apartment 6D, New York,  new  York  wherein  the  Administrator  found  an
     overcharge of $1,205.67 inclusive of excess security and interest  on  the
     overcharge collected on or after April 1, 19 84.

     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 in the administrative appeal.

     The tenant initiated this proceeding on  October  11,  1985  by  filing  a
     complaint of  rent  overcharge.   The  tenant  stated  she  was  currently
     occupying the subject apartment pursuant  to  a  one  year  renewal  lease
     commencing October 1, 1985 and terminating September 30, 1986 at a monthly 
     rent of $740.62.

     A copy of the complaint was served on the owner who did not respond.

     On October 16,1986, the Administrator issued the order here under  review.
     Relying on the 1984 registered  rent,  the  Administrator  found  that  an
     overcharge had been collected and directed the owner to refund overcharges 
     of $1,205.67 inclusive of excess security and interest on the overcharge.

     In the appeal, the tenant contends that there  are  three  errors  in  the
     Administrator's overcharge calculation:

     1)  the lease at issue is a two year lease, not a one year lease; the rent 
     being paid is a greater amount than was considered by  the  Administrator,
     (included with the appeal is a copy of a two year  lease  to  support  the
     tenant's argument), 2) the calculation did  not  include  the  overcharges
     paid  in  October,  and  3)  the  interest  accrued  was  not   calculated
     accurately.  Therefore, the tenant contends that the overcharge should  be
     recalculated to determine the  correct  amount  to  be  refunded  and  the
     Administrator's order should be modified to reflect the recalculation.








          DOCKET NUMBER: AK 410094-RT
     Although afforded the opportunity to do so, the owner did not  respond  to
     the petition.

     After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that  this
     petition should be denied.

     Pursuant to Code Section 2529.6 of the scope of review of a PAR is limited 
     to facts or evidence which were before the Rent Administrator  unless  the
     petitioner establishes that certain facts or evidence which the petitioner 
     seeks to submit on appeal could not have been offered or included  in  the
     proceeding prior to the issuance of the order being appealed.

     The proceeding before the Administrator  was  based  on  the  petitioner's
     complaint in which the petitioner stated the term of the extant lease  and
     the rent being paid.  The Administrator relied on  data  provided  by  the
     petitioner.  The petitioner has offered no reason for the  need  to  amend
     the complaint or the delayed submission of the lease. 

     Accordingly, the  Commissioner  finds  no  error  in  the  Administrator's
     reliance on the complaint filed by the tenant.

     Similarly, with respect to the omission of  the  October  overcharge,  the
     period through September 1986  was  submitted  for  consideration  to  the
     Administrator.  However, the order directs the owner to roll back the rent 
     and to make full  refund  of  any  rent  paid  in  excess  of  the  lawful
     stabilized rent as established in the order.  Therefore, the  Commissioner
     find no error in the time period specifically covered.

     Regarding the calculation of accrued  interest,  the  applicable  rate  of
     interest is the  statutory  rate,  9%  per  annum.   On  this  basis,  the
     Commissioner has recalculated the accrued interest and finds no  error  in
     the Administrator's calculation.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  denied  and  the
     Rent Administrator's order be, and the same  hereby is, affirmed.

     ISSUED:








                                                                   
                                             ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner