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

     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: AL 210457-RO
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: CDR 27461
       2  WEST END REALTY                                   T/C 83191-G
       COMPANY             PETITIONER    :   
     ------------------------------------X    OTHER  PARTY:   INA   MEYEROWITZ,


     On December 31, 1986, the above  named  petitioner-current-owner  filed  a
     Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on November 28, 
     1986 by the Rent Administrator at 10 Columbus Circle, New York,  New  York
     concerning housing accommodations known as apartment number 3K, at 2  West
     End Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Administrator established  the
     stabilized rent and directed the prior and the  current  owner  to  refund
     $4,039.59 including interest from April 1, 1984.

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

     This proceeding was originally commenced  on  January  12,  1984,  by  the
     filing  of  a  complaint  of  rent  overcharge  with  the  New  York  City
     Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB), the  agency  formerly  charged  with
     enforcing the Rent Stabilization Law) by the tenant.

     The owner failed to submit a rental history from the base date.

     Based on a finding that the owner had failed to submit a  complete  rental
     history, the Administrator employed a default procedure to  determine  the
     stabilized rent and the overcharges to be refunded.

     In its Petition, the current owner asserts  that  it  took  title  to  the
     subject building in April,  1982  and  that  the  order  below  should  be
     modified to reflect  the  fact  that  it  sent  the  tenant  a  check  for
     $3,050.15 ( what it claims is the full amount of the current owner's share 
     of the refund due) and to further reflect the fact that the  prior  owner,
     Shorecrest Apartments, alone, owes the tenant the balance of  the  refund:

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that the Petition should be denied.

     The  Commissioner  notes  that  the  Petitioner  does  not  challenge  the
     calculation of the overcharges.  As to the Petitioner's request  that  the
     order below be modified to reflect its  alleged  payment  to  the  tenant,
     (without finding that any such funds were in fact paid) the Commissioner 


          DOCKET NUMBER: AL 210457-RO
     finds that the Petitioner has not provided any basis for the  modification
     of the subject order.  This would still be the case even if  it  had  been
     proven beyond any doubt that said payment  had  been  made.   This  is  so
     because the payment post-dated the issuance of the order.

     As to the question of apportionment, the Commissioner finds that the order 
     below amply provided for apportionment of the refund as between the  prior
     owner and the Petitioner current-owner.   The  appealed  order  reads,  in
     pertinent part as follows:

     "The Rent Stabilization Law provides that in the absence  of  evidence  of
     any collusion  between  the  present  owner  and  the  former  owner,  the
     obligation of the present owner to refund excess rent is limited  to  such
     rent actually collected by it and may  not  be  extended  to  excess  rent
     collected by the former owner ....
     The current and prior owner are directed to make refunds to the tenant for 
     those overcharges collected by it  as  set  forth  on  the  annexed  chart
     within thirty (30) days of the tenant's written request.

     The former owner, Shorerest Apartments, Inc., is responsible for any  rent
     collected by it in excess of the lawful stabilized rent,  for  the  period
     between February 1, 1979 and May, 1982."

     The Commissioner notes that the appealed order states  that  "The  tenant,
     since filing the  complaint,  has  vacated  the  subject  apartment.   The
     Commissioner finds no basis in the record for that  statement.   Moreover,
     the Division's registration records for  the  subject  apartment  indicate
     that the tenant entered into a renewal lease for the subject apartment  in
     1990.  Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the appealed order should be 
     modified  by  deleting  therefrom  the  above  quoted  sentence   as   its
     incorporation in the appealed  order  resulted  from  an  error  in  vital

     The Commissioner notes that the Administrator's order, as amended by  this
     order and opinion, may,  upon the expiration of the period  in  which  the
     owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Article Seventy-eight of  the
     Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and enforced by the tenant  in  the
     same manner as a judgment unless the tenant has in fact received a  credit
     of any portion thereof.

     THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,it is

     ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same hereby is,  denied  and  that
     the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is amended in accordance 
     with this order and opinion.


                                             ELLIOT SANDER
                                           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