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.: BF 110065-RO
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: TC 68290-G
       TINA GRAF,                                           CDR 30,261
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             


       ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN PART


     On June 9, 1987 the above named  petitioner-owner  filed  a  Petition  for
     Administrative Review against an order issued on May 28, 1987 by the  Rent
     Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York  concerning  housing
     accommodations known as Apartment 14-5P at 211-01  75th  Avenue,  Bayside,
     New York wherein the Rent Administrator  determined  that  the  owner  had
     overcharged the tenant.

     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  record  relevant  to  the  issue
     raised by the administrative appeal.

     This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing on December 9, 1982 
     of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant.

     The owner was served with a copy of the complaint  and  was  requested  to
     submit rent records to prove the lawfulness of the rent being charged.  In 
     answer to the complaint, the owner submitted  a  complete  rental  history
     from the base date as required.

     In Order Number CDR 30,261 the  Rent  Administrator  determined  that  the
     tenant had been overcharged in the amount  of  $707.52  and  directed  the
     owner to refund such overcharge to the tenant as well  as  to  reduce  the
     rent.

     In this petition the owner makes three claims.  First, she claims that the 
     Administrator used the improper base  rent  in  the  rental  calculations.
     Second, she claims that the Administrator failed to take cognizance  of  a
     hardship rent increase granted by DHCR.  Third, the owner argues that, 






          DOCKET NUMBER: BF 11065-RO
     when the tenants moved in, the  landlord  installed  a  new  refrigerator,
     kitchen floor and basin.  Thereby, the owner raised the rent  pursuant  to
     Section 20C(1) of the former Rent  Stabilization  Code.   Petitioner  also
     states that the tenant, in his complaint, misinterpreted the wording of an 
     interim Electric  Order  with  regard  to  the  removal  of  the  electric
     inclusion increase.  The owner claimed that the only charges to be removed 
     were those for air conditioning and washing machine current.   The  tenant
     had construed the order to mean that the electrical  inclusion  should  be
     removed when the rent was reduced due to the  installation  of  individual
     meters.  

     The owner also stated that the tenant purchased the  apartment  on  August
     20, 1983 and resold it on January 26, 1984.

     The tenant filed no response to the petition.  After a careful  review  of
     the evidence in the record, the Commissioner is of the  opinion  that  the
     owner's petition should be granted in part and the  Administrator's  order
     should be modified, to correct certain errors.  

     The owner's argument about the improper  base  rent  figure  is  rejected.
     Petitioner supplied a lease which purported to show the base  rent  to  be
     $254.25 instead of the $225 per month as found by the Administrator.   The
     lease, however, is for the period from June 1, 1976 to May 31, 1978.   The
     proper base rent date for this apartment is June  1,  1974.   Petitioner's
     records indicate that on that date, the rent was $225.  The  Administrator
     was correct in using this amount.

     With  regard  to  the  alleged  improvements  made   to   the   apartment,
     documentation (i.e paid bills or invoices) was required to be submitted to 
     the Administrator to establish that an increase is warranted.

     Since no such documentation was submitted, an allowance cannot be made for 
     such alleged improvements in computing the lawful rent.

     In its rental history charts the owner claimed  that  C.A.B.  Opinion  No.
     4828 had authorized a 6.21% hardship increase.  The Administrator did  not
     utilize that hardship increase in  his  calculations.   Taking  this  into
     account, the Commissioner has recalculated the lawful stabilization  rents
     and the amount of overcharge.  They are set  forth  on  the  amended  rent
     calculation chart attached hereto and made a part hereof.

     In the tenant's original complaint, he alleged that  the  rent  overcharge
     was caused by the owner's failing to deduct an amount equal to 4%  of  the
     total rent, which represented the electrical inclusion allowances  granted
     in previous guideline increases.  The tenant alleged that the 4% reduction 
     should have been in addition to the CAB ordered  $30  rent  reduction  for
     conversion to separate metering.

     The Commissioner notes that the directive  to  delete  from  the  tenant's
     rent that  portion  of  the  rent  attributable  to  electrical  inclusion
     allowances was not  made  until  the  final  determination  regarding  the
     conversion was issued on May 2, 1985 and was effective August  1,  1983  .
     The terms of that final order (CDR 03,322) are also  incorporated  in  the
     attached rent calculation chart.








          DOCKET NUMBER: BF 11065-RO
     The corrected computations result in a determination that  overcharges  of
     $248.44  including  excess  security  are  due   to   the   tenant.    The
     Administrator's order is modified to reflect this overcharge.  

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

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,  granted  in  part
     and that the Rent Administrator's  order  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
     modified to find a total overcharge of $248.44.

     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