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

          APPEAL OF                                DOCKET NO.ARL13241L
                                              :    DRO DOCKET NO.L3114889R
            Wyndham Realty,                        DRO ORDER NO.CDR 17, 979
                                                   TENANT:  Henry   G.   Mc
                               PETITIONER     :


          On June 20, 1986, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition 
          for Administrative Review against an order issued on June 11, 1986 
          by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York, 
          concerning the housing accommodation known as Apartment 14E,  166
          Second Avenue, New York, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator 
          determined the lawful stabilization rent, directed the  owner  to
          roll back the rent and to refund $2,064.45, including interest and 
          excess security.  That petition was rejected on July 23, 1986 under 
          Administrative Review Docket Number  ARL  11249-L.   The  present
          petition, filed August 6, 1986, constitutes the timely refiling of 
          that petition.

          The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was initiated prior to 
          April 1, 1984.  Section 2526.1(a)(4) and 2521.1(d)  of  the  Rent
          Stabilization  Code  (effective  May  1,  1987)  governing   rent
          overcharge and  fair  market  rent  proceedings  provide  that  a
          determination of these matters be based  upon  the  law  or  code
          provision in effect on March 31, 1984.  Therefore, unless otherwise 
          indicated, reference to Sections of the Rent  Stabilization  Code
          (Code) contained herein are to the Code in effect  on  April  30,

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

          The tenant, commenced this proceeding on March 23, 1984 by filing 
          a general complaint of rent overcharge.  The tenant had commenced 
          occupancy on December 1, 1980 at  a  monthly  rental  of  $401.36
          pursuant to a one-year lease.  The tenant stated that he had been 
          advised by other tenants not "to believe the rent history rider and 
          to request a rent history to base date."


          The tenant's complaint was served upon the owner,  along  with  a
          notice apprising the owner of the  need  for  a  complete  rental
          history of the subject apartment from its base date.

          In response, the owner asserted that no overcharges had occurred, 
          that all  rent  increases  were  made  in  compliance  with  Rent
          Stabilization Guidelines; and therefore, the complaint should  be
          dismissed.  With its answer, the owner submitted  copies  of  all
          leases dating from November 1, 1977 through November 30, 1984, and 
          a copy of Landlord's Report of Statutory Decontrol dated  October
          17, 1977.

          The tenant did not reply.

          On June 11,  1986,  in  the  order  hereunder  review,  the  Rent
          Administrator established the lawful stabilized rent  as  $422.17
          through November 30, 1984, and found a rent overcharge of $2,074.45 
          including excess security and interest on the overcharge collected 
          on and after April 1, 1984.

          In its appeal, the owner contends that the  Administrator's  rent
          calculation chart is incorrect in  that  the  Rent  Administrator
          reduced the rent from $304.75  to  $300.78  when  the  owner  was
          actually entitled to an increase pursuant to Guideline Number  11
          which would have yielded a rent of $346.00, as had been charged by 
          the owner.  Because the Administrator  used  the  reduced  figure
          $300.78 instead of $346.00 as the base rental for future increases, 
          all future rents were lower than  those  charged  by  the  owner.
          Accordingly, the owner contends that beginning  with  the  tenant
          preceding the complainant, the rent should be re-calculated to find 
          no rent overcharge, and the Rent Administrator's order should  be

          The tenant did not respond.

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

          An examination of the record reveals that the  subject  apartment
          first became subject to the Rent Stabilization Law on November 1, 
          1977.  Pursuant to a two-year lease, the tenant at that time, paid 
          a monthly rent of $265.00, thus establishing the base rent for the 
          apartment.  At the end of the lease term, this  tenant  signed  a
          three-year renewal lease for the period November 1, 1979  through
          October 31, 1982, which under Guidelines Number 11 increased  the
          base rent by 15% to $304.75.  Subsequently, this tenant vacated the 
          premises prior to the expiration of the lease.

          On January 1, 1980, a new tenant, took occupancy pursuant to a one 
          year lease ending December 31, 1980.  This rental was also  under


          Guideline Number 11.  Thereupon, the owner calculated a  one-year
          guideline increase of 13 1/2% on the rent, $304.75, provided for in 
          the previous lease.

          However both these tenants, executed leases when  Rent  Guideline
          Number 11 was in effect (July 1, 1979 through June 30, 1980).  DHCR 
          policy provides that an owner may not compound guidelines increases 
          during  the  same  guidelines  period.   Accordingly,  the   Rent
          Administrator computed these leases upon the rent charged and paid 
          on the base date immediately prior to the  applicable  guidelines
          period, in this case November 1, 1977.  The differences in  lease
          periods and applicable percentages of guidelines  rent  increases
          between the vacating tenant and the successor tenant  produces  a
          somewhat anomalous result, i.e., the rent of the successor tenant 
          is lower than the rent of the tenant replaced.  Nevertheless, the 
          Commissioner  finds  no  error  in   the   Rent   Administrator's

          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 this Order 
          as the basis for the change.  Registration statements already  on
          file, however, should not be amended to reflect the findings  and
          and determinations made in this  order.   The  owner  is  further
          directed to adjust subsequent rents to an amount no greater  than
          that determined by this order plus any lawful increase.

          The Commissioner has determined in the Order and Opinion that the 
          owner collected overcharges of $2,074.45.  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 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
                                                        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