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.: BA 410139-RT &
                                         :              BC 410284-RT
                                            
       JOYCE HENNESSEY                      DRO ORDER NO.: CDR 26,815
                           PETITIONER    :  DRO DOCKET NO.: L 3113122-R
     ------------------------------------X                             
                                            OTHER PARTY: W.S.H. MANAGING CORP.
                                                      c/o D. EISENSTEIN REALTY


           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


     The  above  named  petitioner-tenant   timely   filed   a   Petition   for
     Administrative Review against an order issued on November 18, 1986, by the 
     Rent Administrator at 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New  York,  concerning
     housing accommodations known as Apartment  Number  5F  at  201  West  81st
     Street, New York,  New  York,  wherein  the  Administrator  dismissed  the
     tenants overcharge complaint.

     The  Commissioner  notes  that  two  Administrative  Review   files   have
     inadvertently  been  opened  with  respect  to  this  one   Petition   for
     Administrative Review.  Administrative Review docket numbers BA  410139-RT
     and  BC  410284-RT  respectively,  have  been  assigned  to  these  files.
     Therefore, in order to correct this clerical error and pursuant to Section 
     2527.5(f) of the Code effective May 1, 1987, the proceedings pending under 
     docket numbers BA 410139-RT and BC 410284-RT have been consolidated.

     The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was initiated 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 provisions 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, 1987.

     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 March 30, 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 at that time,  Balc  Development  Eighty-First,  Inc.  filed  an
     answer to the complaint.








          DOCKET NUMBER: BA 410139-RT & BC 410284-RT
     On the chart attached to and made a part of the order, based on the rental 
     documentation submitted by the owner, the  Administrator  established  the
     stabilized rent and determined that no overcharges had been collected.

     In the Petition, the tenant contends, in substance, that the Administrator 
     erred on the rent calculation chart attached to the order by  deeming  the
     tenant's initial rent ($1,250.00) as the  legal  rent  under  her  vacancy
     lease (September 1, 1982 through August 31, 1983) and using that  rent  as
     the base for calculating all subsequent Guidelines increases.  The  tenant
     notes that the owner had asserted the, following grounds, among others, to 
     support its contention that the tenants initial lease rent was  the  legal
     rent: 1. the owner was entitled to a first rent because the apartment  had
     been substantially altered  and/or;  2.  the  owner  was  entitled  to  an
     increase based on the substantial sumit had expended for  improvements  to
     the apartment and/or; 3. the rent was the fair market rent and  the  owner
     was entitled thereto because the prior tenant had been a  rent  controlled
     tenant.  The tenant asserts that the Administrator  did  not  specify  the
     basis for its determination as to the tenant's initial rent and  that  the
     record below was inadequate to support any one of the grounds  upon  which
     the owner based its contention that the initial lease rent was  the  legal
     rent.  The tenant therefore seeks the reversal of the order  below  and  a
     determination of the legal regulated rent under her  initial  lease  using
     the Special Guidelines to determine a Fair Market Rent Appeal (FMRA);  or,
     in the alternative, the tenant seeks a remand of these proceedings to  the
     Administrator so that a proper determination of the tenant's initial legal 
     regulated rent can be made.

     In its answer to the petition, the owner, W.S.H.  Managing  Corp,  c/o  D.
     Eisenstein Realty, asserts the following: 1. in addition  to  the  instant
     overcharge proceeding, the tenant filed a FMRA (to whi h  Docket  No.,  L-
     3113285-T had been assigned) and as of the date of the owner's answer (May 
     26, 1987) that FMRA had not been decided; 2. the tenant  does  not  attack
     the calculation of the increases charged after the vacancy lease;  3.  the
     tenant challenges the vacancy lease rent, which the owner does not have to 
     defend as the legal rent in an overcharge proceeding;  that  is  an  issue
     which may only be, properly, raised in a FMRA.

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

     The Commissioner notes that the tenant's  FMRA  was  denied  in  an  order
     issued January 5, 1989.  The Division's records show that that  order  was
     not appealed by the tenant.  That being the case, and the time for such an 
     appeal having expired, the Commissioner  finds  that  the  Administrator's
     determination that the tenant had  not  been  overcharged  should  now  be
     affirmed. 

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

     ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same hereby is, denied.

     ISSUED:


                                                                   
                                             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