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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NOS.:  BA  410138-RT
                                                              DL 410354-RO 
                                              :    D.R.O.    DOCKET    NOS.:
           PERLBINDER             REALTY             CORP.,              AND
           85TH                         ESTATES                         CO.,
                                                 TENANT: STEWART MANDLER
                                 PETITIONERS  :  


               On Janua y  2,  1987  the  above  named   petitioner   owner-
          Perlbinder Realty Corp. filed a Petition for Administrative Review 
          (Docket No. BA 410138-RT) against an order (Docket No. ZAA-400123 
          RV)  issued  on  November  28,   1986   by   the   District   Rent
          Administrator/Director of Processing (hereinafter "Director"), 92 
          31  Union  Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New  York  concerning  housing
          accommodations known as Apartment 35G at 185 East 85th Street, New 
          York, New  York  wherein  the  Director  determined  that  Stewart
          Mandler was the prime tenant of  the  subject  apartment  and  was
          eligible for all the rights of a Rent Stabilized tenant, including 
          the right to a renewal lease.   

               On December 26, 1989 the above  named  petitioner-owner  85th
          Estates Co. filed a Petition for Administrative Review (Docket No. 
          DL 410354-RO) against an order (Docket No. L-3114875-RT) issued on 
          November 21, 1989 by the District Rent Administrator  (hereinafter
          "Administrator"), 92-31  Union  Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New  York
          concerning  the  subject  apartment,  wherein  the   Administrator
          determined  an  overcharge  of  $142,502.03  and   dismissed   the
          complainant's  Fair  Market  Rent  Adjustment  Application  ("fair
          market rent appeal").  

               As these proceedings involve common grounds of law and  fact,
          they are herein merged and decided in one order and opinion.

               The Commissioner notes that  the  overcharge  proceeding  was
          filed prior to April 1, 1984.  Sections 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
          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 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BA 410138-RT AND DL 410354-RO 
          Stabilization Code (Code) contained herein  are  to  the  Code  in
          effect on April 30, 1987.

               The issue in these appeals is whether the Director's and  the
          Administrator's orders were warranted. 

               The applicable sections of the Law are Section 26-516 of  the
          Rent Stabilization Law, Section  2526.1(a)  of  the  current  Rent
          Stabilization Code, and Sections 2(h), 10B, 20A, 21, 35A, 42A,  62
          and 63 of the former Rent Stabilization Code.

               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.  

               The lease renewal proceeding (Docket No.  AA  400123-RV)  was
          originally commenced by the filing in December, 1985 of a Tenant's 
          Complaint of Owner's Failure to Renew Lease, in which  the  tenant
          stated that he had commenced occupancy on December 15, 1983  at  a
          rent of $1,800.00 per month, and in which he claimed that  he  was
          the subtenant of an  illusory  prime  tenant,  the  owner  of  the
          property, who was repeating his wide-standing practice of  renting
          at an inflated rent an apartment claimed to be  for  his  personal
          use and occupancy, although the owner no longer had any intent  to
          occupy the  unit.   With  his  complaint  the  tenant  included  a
          standard apartment lease for two years and one-half month on which 
          the  rent  stabilization  language  was  obliterated,  and   which
          contained no rent stabilization rider.  The lease included a rider 
          providing that the tenant would remove the  furnishings  from  the
          apartment,  and  return  them  upon  vacating.   An  inventory  of
          furnishings  was  also  included.   The  landlord  was  listed  as
          "Perlbinder Realty Corp., By: Charles H.  Greenthal  &  Co.  Inc.,
          Agent."   All  documents  were  signed  by  Julius  Perlbinder  as

               By letter February 18, 1986  the  owner's  (prior)  attorney,
          stating that she  represented  the  owner  85th  Estates  Company,
          requested a 3-week extension of time to answer.  By  letter  dated
          May 14, 1986 she requested a further extension of time in view  of
          recent settlement discussions.  On November  4,  1986  the  tenant
          stated that no settlement discussions had taken place, and that he 
          had still not received a  renewal  lease.   The  Director's  order
          finding him to be the prime tenant, and naming  Perlbinder  Realty
          Corp. c/o Charles H. Greenthal Co. Inc. as the owner,  was  issued
          later that month.

               Perlbinder Realty Corporation, in its petition (Docket No. BA 
          410138-RT)  against  that  order,  contends  in   substance   that
          Manhattan Savings Bank is the owner of the subject premises;  that
          85th Estates Company, a partnership, is the net lessee with a  99-
          year lease,  and  should  be  considered  the  owner  for  present
          purposes; that Perlbinder Realty Corporation is not the owner, but 

          is  rather  the  corporate  entity  of  the  prime  tenant  Julius
          Perlbinder which entered into a  sublease  with  the  complainant;
          that  the  DHCR  was  advised  that  85th  Estates  Company,   not
          Perlbinder Realty Corp., was the owner of  the  subject  premises;
          that the prime tenant Julius Perlbinder is a minority partner in 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BA 410138-RT AND DL 410354-RO 
          85th Estates Company; that he entered into a long-term  lease  for
          the apartment when the subject premises was built in 1967; that he 
          actually resided in the subject apartment with  his  wife  as  the
          primary tenant for many years; that he  is  now  semi-retired  and
          spending more of his time in Florida; that he received  permission
          from the owner 85th Estates Company to sublet his apartment;  that
          any rental monies paid by the subtenant to Julius  Perlbinder  are
          personal to Mr. Perlbinder and do not go to the owner;  and   that
          the intent of the parties to make a  sublease  with  no  right  to
          renewal is evidenced by the fact that the  paragraph  relating  to
          renewal of leases pursuant  to  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  was
          blacked out, that there was no Rent Stabilization Rider  attached,
          and that the apartment contained Mr. Perlbinder's  furnishings  to
          be  used  by  him  when  he  returned  sometime  in  the   future.
          Perlbinder Realty Corporation also contends in substance that  the
          DHCR did not reply to a May 14, 1986 letter by its former attorney 
          requesting an extension of time to interpose  an  answer,  due  to
          settlement  negotiations;  that  the  Administrator's  order   was
          therefore issued  without  the  owner  having  an  opportunity  to
          interpose an answer; that if the  DHCR  had  given  the  owner  an
          opportunity to interpose an answer, such answer would have  stated
          substantially the facts outlined in the present petition; that the 
          Administrator's order would not have been warranted  if  the  DHCR
          had knowledge of such facts;  that  the  practical  effect  is  to
          evict the prime tenant Julius Perlbinder without  due  process  of
          law based on a failure-to-renew-lease  complaint  by  a  subtenant
          with no right to a renewal lease; that evicting Mr. Perlbinder and 
          requiring him to leave his  furnishings  at  the  apartment  as  a
          required service deprives him of his property without due  process
          of law; and that the complainant has not submitted any proof  that
          Mr. Perlbinder has sublet any other  apartment  in  the  building,
          that he has not been the one and only prime tenant of the  subject
          apartment, or that he does not intend to return to  the  apartment
          in the future.   

               In the rent overcharge and fair market rent appeal proceeding 
          (Docket No. L-3114875-RT),  which  the  complainant  commenced  in
          March, 1984, the owner's former attorney in 1985 asserted that the 
          tenant was not entitled to a fair market rent appeal since he  was
          a subtenant, and stated that the subject building was  constructed
          in 1967.  On January 5 and February 24, 1989 the  owner  was  sent
          requests for copies of Mr. Perlbinder's prime leases and for proof 
          that Mr. Perlbinder did not have another  primary  residence.   On
          April 4, 1989 the  owner  was  sent  a  Final  Notice  of  Pending
          Default, which stated in substance that  unless  leases  from  the
          base date were submitted within  20  days,  certain  DHCR  default
          procedures would be used to  establish  the  lawful  stabilization
          rent, and treble damages would be imposed on  willful  overcharges
          occurring on or after April 1, 1984. 

               On  April  13,  1989  the  owner  was   notified   that   the
          preponderance of the evidence indicated a willful overcharge,  and
          that the owner had 21 days to submit evidence to rebut  a  finding
          of willful overcharge.  In answer, the owner  contended  that  the
          subject apartment had always been exempt from rent stabilization 
          by virtue of owner occupancy.  The owner also  made  substantially
          all the same assertions it made  in  the  appeal  (Docket  No.  BA
          410138-RT)  summarized  supra.   The  owner  did  not  submit  the

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BA 410138-RT AND DL 410354-RO 
          evidence that had been requested in January and February.    

               On April 17, 1989 the tenant advised  that  he  had,  on  the
          advice of counsel, discontinued paying rent as of May 1, 1987. 

               On May 5, 1989 the  owner  repeated  the  same  arguments  as
          before, and additionally asserted that treble damages  should  not
          be imposed if any overcharge were to be found, as such  overcharge
          would have been due to a good faith but wrongful interpretation of 
          the law and facts by a non-attorney and not due to willfulness.

               In an order issued on November 21,  1989  the  District  Rent
          Administrator dismissed the fair market rent appeal and, based  on
          the failure of the prime tenant/owner-partner to  provide  a  full
          rental history or to substantiate that the subject  apartment  was
          continuously occupied by the owner without payment  of  rent  from
          the base date, found an overcharge of $142,502.03 as of April  30,
          1987, including treble damages  on  overcharges  occurring  on  or
          after April 1,  1984.   The  order  named  85th  Estates  Co.  c/o
          Perlbinder  Realty  Co.  as  the  owner,  Julius  Perlbinder   c/o
          Perlbinder  Realty  Co.  as  the  prime  tenant,  and  Charles  H.
          Greenthal & Co., Inc. as the managing agent.  

               In its  petition  (Docket  No.  DL  410354-RO)  against  that
          order, 85th Estates Co. contends in  substance  that  the  subject
          apartment was never subject to rent  stabilization  due  to  owner
          occupancy; that even if the complainant's subtenancy  was  subject
          to  rent  stabilization  then  the  submission  of  the   sublease
          constitutes submission of a rental history from the base date,  so
          there has been no default; that there were never any leases  prior
          to the subtenancy; that, accordingly, if the subtenancy is subject 
          to rent stabilization then the initial sublease rent of  $1,800.00
          became the initial legal  base  stabilization  rent;  that  if  an
          overcharge should be found then the legal stabilized  rent  should
          take into account the fact that the  apartment  was  sublet  as  a
          fully furnished and decorated apartment; and that  treble  damages
          should not have been imposed.

               In answer, the tenant asserts in  substance  that  he  had  a
          lease, headed "Standard Form of Apartment Lease," with  Perlbinder
          Realty Corp. and not a sublease with Julius Perlbinder; that while 
          the apartment was furnished at the  time  of  renting,  the  lease
          rider provided that the tenant would remove the furniture from the 
          apartment and return it upon vacating at his own expense; that  it
          appears that there was no  furnished  subletting,  but  rather  an
          attempt to give an appearance of one; that the statement that 

          there had been no leases for the subject apartment other than  the
          sublease is untrue, as he has ascertained that there was  a  prior
          tenant, Lydie Laurent, whose cable-TV receipt [without  a  legible
          apartment number] he is enclosing; that Julius Perlbinder's  claim
          that he is just a layman mistaken as to the law is undermined by a
          Court of Appeals decision involving the  same  building  (although
          the address is given as 85 East 85th Street rather than  185  East
          85th Street), and someone  who  is  obviously  a  relative,  doing
          exactly the  same  sort  of  illusory  subletting;  and  that  the
          petitioner has schemed and plotted in an attempt to evade the Rent 
          Stabilization Code.  With his answer the  tenant  has  enclosed  a

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BA 410138-RT AND DL 410354-RO 
          1986 Court of Appeals decision in which the Court  found  the  New
          York City Conciliation and Appeals Board  (C.A.B.)  to  have  been
          warranted in finding Barton Mark Perlbinder, a partner  n  a  442-
          unit residential building at 85 East 85th Street, to have been  an
          illusory  prime  tenant  by  virtue  of  occupying  two  adjoining
          apartments from approximately 1968 to 1974 and, upon vacating them 
          with no intention of returning, subletting them to tenant  Frangos
          and later  refusing  to  renew  the  sublease.   [While  the  DHCR
          apartment registration system does not show a stabilized  building
          at the 85 East 85th Street address named in the opinion,  it  does
          list the subject building  at  185  East  85th  Street  as  having
          approximately 434  residential  apartments.   C.A.B.  Opinion  No.
          26207, upheld in the Court of Appeals  decision,  had  listed  the
          tenant, Chrysoula Frangos, as being at 185 East  85th  Street  but
          had listed the subject apartment as being  85  East  85th  Street,
          Apartments 30G and 30H.  In 1984 Apartment 30GH at 185  East  85th
          Street was  registered  as  being  occupied  by  its  owner,  Mark
          Perlbinder.  In 1986 he was registered at  a  stabilized  rent  of
          $400.00, and in 1987 Caryspula Frangos was registered at a rent of 
          $1,592.45.  The C.A.B. opinion clearly  pertains  to  the  subject
          building at 185 East 85th Street.]    

               On April 4, 1991 a notice was sent to 85th Estates Company in 
          care of its attorney, requesting evidence of  Julius  Perlbinder's
          occupancy of the subject apartment from May  31,  1968  until  the
          time he left.  Copies of this request were  also  sent  to  Julius
          Perlbinder c/o Perlbinder  Realty  Corp.,  and  Perlbinder  Realty
          Corp. c/o Charles H. Greenthal and Co., Inc.  No  reply  has  been
          received from any of these to date. 

               In  response  to  another  notice  the  tenant  contends   in
          substance that New York Telephone Company and Long Island Lighting 
          Company have a Julius Perlbinder at an address in  Nassau  County;
          that LILCO indicates that there has  been  electrical  service  at
          that address  for  over  20  years;  that  the  1990-91  Manhattan
          Telephone directory lists Julius Perlbinder at a residence of  429
          East 52nd Street [at a different telephone number  than,  although
          in the same building  as,  Perlbinder  Realty  Corp.];  that  such
          telephone service commenced on  or  about  March  16,  1976;  that
          Julius Perlbinder has a non-published telephone listing in Broward 
          County, Florida; that subpoenas  should  be  issued  to  New  York
          Telephone,  LILCO,  Consolidated  Edison  and  Florida   Telephone
          Company to obtain evidence that would confirm these claims; and 

          that two tenants living on the same floor as the  tenant  indicate
          that they have seen various  other  people  occupy  the  apartment
          prior to the complainant.   With  this  response  the  tenant  has
          enclosed statements (signed but not notarized) from  two  tenants,
          claiming to have lived on the same floor as the subject  apartment
          since 1969 and 1973, in which they state that they have known the
          complainant since 1983 and that a  Ms.  L.  Laurent,  a  man  from
          Texas, and a couple from the South African embassy or government 
          lived in the subject apartment for several  years  each  prior  to
          the time the complainant commenced occupancy.   

               The Commissioner is  of  the  opinion  that  these  petitions
          should be denied.

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BA 410138-RT AND DL 410354-RO 
               With respect  o  the  lease-renewal  case  (Docket  Nos.  AA-
          410123-RV/  BA  420138-RT),  the  Commissioner  finds   that   the
          Director was warranted in issuing an order based  on  the  record,
          six months after  the  owner's  attorney  had  last  requested  an
          extension of time (which was not granted), and  after  the  tenant
          had  stated  that  there  had  been  no  settlement   discussions.
          However, the Commissioner notes that the  arguments  and  evidence
          which the owner states it would have  submitted  if  it  had  been
          allowed to are being  considered  herein  in  the  appeal  of  the
          overcharge proceeding.

               An apartment otherwise subject  to  stabilization  is  exempt
          during the time that is occupied  by  its  owner  as  her  or  his
          primary residence.  If the owner occupies the apartment  from  the
          base date, then the rent charged  the  first  tenant  becomes  the
          initial legal stabilized rent, and the lawful rent for  subsequent
          tenants is based on  lawful  increases  above  the  initial  legal
          stabilized rent.

               A tenant who occupies a rent stabilized apartment as  his  or
          her primary residence may generally, with approval of  the  owner,
          sublet the apartment, at a lawful rent no greater than his or  her
          rent plus  an  increase  for  any  additional  services  that  the
          subtenant receives which are not already  included  in  the  prime
          tenant's rent.  The  subtenant  has  the  right  to  a  stabilized
          sublease, since the subtenant generally has all the  rights  of  a
          stabilized tenant other than those relating to renewal leases  and
          to cooperative or condominium conversion.  For the sublease to  be
          a legitimate sublease, rather than an assignment, the prime tenant 
          must intend to resume occupancy at the conclusion of the sublet.  

               The facts of the present case evince  an  attempt  by  Julius
          Perlbinder to create a new class of  landlord  having  aspects  of
          both tenant and owner.  He cannot  have  it  both  ways,  and  the
          appeal fails whether he is regarded as a tenant or as an owner.  

               As a (prime) tenant, Mr. Perlbinder  is  claimed  to  have  a
          lease and to be  subletting  to  the  complainant.   However,  Mr.
          Perlbinder's   rent  would  have  to  be  shown  to  be  a  lawful
          stabilized rent, whether by virtue of being the first stabilized 

          rent or by virtue of there having been only lawful increases since 
          the base date.  While Mr. Perlbinder claims to have been the first 
          tenant, his rent has not been proven and is not even  known,  even
          though the owner was requested on two occasions to submit  a  copy
          of his prime lease.  If Mr. Perlbinder  is  regarded  as  a  prime
          stabilized tenant, then the  Administrator's  order  is  warranted
          because the owner has not furnished the necessary  rental  history
          to justify the complainant's rent.   (In  addition,  as  is  shown
          infra, it is unlikely  that  Mr.  Perlbinder  intended  to  resume
          occupancy at the conclusion of the sublet,  or  that  the  subject
          apartment was actually his primary residence up to the  time  that
          the complainant commenced occupancy.)   

               However, the owner's former attorney stated in Docket No.  BA
          410138-RT that Mr. Perlbinder had  "a  long-term  lease"  for  the
          subject apartmen ,  thus  suggesting  that  he  was  not  a  rent-
          stabilized tenant but  was  more  in  the  position  of  an  owner

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BA 410138-RT AND DL 410354-RO 
          (somewhat similar to the 99-year net lessee of the building), even 
          though  it  seems  unusual  for  a  member  of  a  partnership  to
          essentially pay rent to himself and  even  though  Mr.  Perlbinder
          should have had a stabilized lease if he was actually going to  be
          a rent-paying tenant.  If Mr. Perlbinder is regarded as an owner,
          and  the  subject  apartment  is  regarded  as  exempt  from  rent
          stabilization during the time that he occupied it  without  paying
          rent (although this has not been shown and is contradicted by  the
          claim of a long-term lease for an apartment used  for  residential
          purposes), then the first stabilized tenant after Mr. Perlbinder 
          vacated should have been offered a stabilized lease with  a  right
          to renew, rather than a sublease without such a right.  While  the
          complainant's  initial  rent  may  have  been  the  initial  legal
          stabilization rent if there had been no  other  tenancies  between
          the time Mr. Perlbinder ended a legitimate owner occupancy and the 
          time the complainant commenced occupancy, the owner has not shown, 
          even though requested several times to do so, that Mr.  Perlbinder
          occupied the subject apartment as the only tenancy  prior  to  the
          complainant's.  In fact, it appears quite unlikely both  that  Mr.
          Perlbinder's was the only tenancy and that he had any intention of 
          returning after the expiration of the "sublease."  The  statements
          of the  long-term  tenants  on  the  same  floor  regarding  prior
          tenancies are suggestive, as is the repeated failure of the  owner
          to provide the requested evidence of  Mr.  Perlbinder's  dates  of
          occupancy.    While   the    complainant's    allegations    about
          Mr.Perlbinder having residences in Florida and  Nassau  County  in
          1990 would, even  if  proven,  not  be  conclusive  since  it  was
          admitted that Mr. Perlbinder was semi-retired to Florida and since 
          it might be expected that someone  who  could  not  return  to  an
          apartment in Manhattan because of a DHCR order might find  another
          residence in the area, an examination of the 1980 (copyright 1979) 
          and 1985 New York  Telephone  and  NYNEX  directories  for  Nassau
          County reveals listings for a Julius Perlbinder at the same 
          address and telephone number as in the 1990 listing  submitted  by

          the complainant.  In 1979 Mr. Perlbinder was  supposedly  residing
          at the subject apartment, and in 1985 he was presumably  preparing
          to return from Florida to the subject apartment at the  expiration
          of the "sublease." 
               Regarding the contention of Perlbinder Realty Corp. in Docket 
          No. BA 410138-RT that it is not the  owner  and  that  any  rental
          monies paid by the complainant "are personal to Julius  Perlbinder
          and do not go to the  owner  herein,"  the  fact  that  Perlbinder
          Realty Corp. was listed as owner on the complainant's  lease,  and
          was therefore entitled to receive rent, makes  it  an  "owner"  as
          defined by the Rent Stabilization Code.  To the extent  that  this
          argument might be made in an attempt to exclude 85th  Estates  Co.
          from liability, it is also  rejected.   As  managing  partner  who
          received the permission of 85th Estates Co. to "sublease"  to  the
          tenant, his knowledge  must  be  imputed  to  it.   Regarding  its
          contention that the owner was deprived of  his  furniture  without
          due process  of  law:   Unlike  the  case  involving  Barton  Mark
          Perlbinder, where the Court of Appeals upheld the  C.A.B.  finding
          that furniture was a required service, the Administrator  did  not

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BA 410138-RT AND DL 410354-RO 
          make any determination as to furniture in the present  case.   The
          apartment did contain what appears to be a normal complement of  
          furniture (except for the lack of a bed) when the complainant 
          commenced occupancy, according to the inventory.  Rather than  Mr.
          Perlbinder  himself  arranging  for  secure  storage  of  his  own
          furniture to await his eventual return, or his providing that  the
          furniture would remain in the apartment, he took the unusual  step
          of requiring the tenant to remove the furniture, which would 
          presumably be stored at a location and under conditions  that  Mr.
          Perlbinder would not have knowledge or  control  of.   Given  that
          this order is  upholding  the  Administrator's  finding  that  Mr.
          Perlbinder  was  willfully  evading  the  rent  laws,   it   seems
          distinctly possible that the intent or at least the expectation of 
          the parties was that the furniture would remain in the  apartment,
          and that the lease rider regarding its removal  was  not  intended
          seriously but  only  designed  to  give  an  appearance  that  Mr.
          Perlbinder intended  to  return.   This  order  does  not  make  a
          determination as to the actual intent of the parties regarding the 

               Regarding the contention that the parties did  not  intend  a
          stabilization  lease:   an   apartment   subject   to   the   Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code does not become  exempt  because  of  a
          failure to execute a stabilization lease, since a tenant  may  not
          waive his or her rights.  

               Regarding the assertion that treble  damages  should  not  be
          imposed because Julius Perlbinder simply made mistakes of fact and 
          law: for the reasons given herein and in the Administrator's order 
          the  Commissioner  does  not  consider  that  the  presumption  of
          willfulness has been rebutted, particularly since another  partner
          in the subject building (and quite possibly a relative of 

          Julius Perlbinder, as there are telephone listings for only six 
          Perlbinders in New York City and Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester  and
          Rockland  Counties)  engaged  in  the  same   sort   of   illusory

               This order may, upon the expiration of the  period  in  which
          the owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Artic e  seventy-
          eight of the civil practice law and rules,be filed and enforced by 
          the tenant in the same manner as a judgment or not  in  excess  of
          twenty percent thereof per month may be offset  against  any  rent
          thereafter due the owner.

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

               ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the  same  hereby  are,
          denied and that the Director's and the Administrator's orders  be,
          and the same hereby are, affirmed.  The overcharge as of April 30, 
          1987, including excess security of $1,233.25, is $142,502.03. 


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BA 410138-RT AND DL 410354-RO 

                                          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