BC 710067-RT
                        STATE OF NEW YORK
                           GERTZ PLAZA
                     92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                     JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:
                                        BC 710067-RT
            MARC PYSER,                 DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                        PETITIONER      NF-86-S-357-R

On  March  23,  1987, the above-named petitioner-tenant  filed  a
Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order  issued
on  February 20, 1987, by the Rent Administrator at the Hempstead
District Rent Office, concerning the housing accommodations known
as  190  West  Merrick  Road, Freeport,  New  York,  wherein  the
Admin-istrator determined the tenant's overcharge complaint.

The  applicable law is Section 2502.5 and 2502.6  of  the  Tenant
Protection Regulations.

The  issue  in  these proceedings is whether the  Administrator's
order was proper.

The  tenant  commenced the proceedings on April  14,  1986  ques-
tioning the rent.

The  owner responded by submitting a copy of the tenant's initial
lease, effective December 20, 1984 to June 30, 1986, at a rent of
$520.94 per month, a copy of the subject tenant's present  lease,
effective July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987, at a rent of $544.38 per
month,  and a copy of the prior tenant's lease, effective May  1,
1984 to June 30, 1986, at a rent of $436.11 per month from May 1,
1984  to May 31, 1984, at $493.52 per month from June 1, 1984  to
June 30, 1986.

The Administrator also requested the owner to submit the lease in
effect before the prior tenant's last lease, due to the fact that
the prior tenant's last lease was incomplete.  A second and

final  notice was forwarded to the owner outlining the Division's
options for determining the subject tenant's legal regulated rent
if  the  landlord failed to respond.  The owner did respond  that
the premises were recently purchased, and that it did not have  a
rent history.

In  a separate lease renewal determination, the Administrator had
found  that the owner had failed to renew the tenant's  lease  on
the  proper  form,  or in a timely manner, as prescribed  by  the
Regulations.  The owner was barred from collecting the  guideline
increase  of  $23.44 per month, for the lease effective  July  1,
1986  to  June 30, 1987; from July 1, 1986 to December 31,  1986.
The owner would be eligible to collect the guideline increase
90  days  after  the date the landlord offers the  lease  to  the
tenant  on  the prescribed form.  The order was dated January  1,
1987 and issued under Docket No. FA-J-710008-RV.

Based  on  the record, the Administrator established the tenant's
initial  rent  based on the last rent paid by  the  prior  tenant
without  any guideline adjustment for leases commencing prior  to
the  date  of  the Administrator's order, February  20,  1987  at
$493.52  through June 30, 1986, and computed overcharges for  the
period through June 30, 1986, as follows:

     Excess collected from December 20, 1984 to June 30, 1986
     $502.94 -$493.52 x 19 months = $520.98.

In  addition the Administrator computed overcharges based on  the
renewal lease rent of $544.78 and the assumption that the  tenant
had  paid  rent in excess of the $520.94 adjusted rent  establish
that  the  lease  renewal  proceedings  under  Docket  No.  FA-J-
710008-RV, noted above, as follows:

     $544.38 -$493.52 x 8 months = $406.88.

The  total  refund  was  established at  $927.86  subject  to  an
adjust-ment  if  the tenant did pay the rent as adjusted  in  the
lease renewal proceedings.

The  tenant challenges the Administrator's determination  arguing
that  the  vacancy lease rent should have been computed based  on
the  lower amount ($436.11) of the prior tenant's two-tier  final
lease rather than the final rent of $493.52.  The petitioner also
requests  whether  it  is entitled to additional  excess  charges
including  treble  damages, and asks  whether  the  lease  period
should be recalculated.

After  careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the  opinion
that the petition should be granted in part.

Section 35(6) of the former Tenant Protection Regulation provided
the following:

         "Lease upon vacancy prior to expiration of prior
          lease term.  Where a lease for a one, two or three
          year   term  commenced  on  or  after  the   local
          effec-tive date, and the tenant vacates  prior  to
          the expiration of the one, two or three year term,
          the legal regulated rent in effect under the lease
          shall continue in effect for the remainder of  the
          lease term.  Upon the renting to a new tenant, the
          landlord  shall provide to tenant  and  execute  a
          valid written lease for a one or two year term, at
          the tenant's option. . ."
The regulations further provided for appropriate rate adjustments
for the new leases.

Section  2502.5  of  the  present Tenant  Protection  Regulations
superceding  Section 35(6) effective July 1,  1983,  provides  in
essence,  that  no lease fixing a rent pursuant to  a  guidelines
board  increase shall provide for any adjustment during its term,
except in certain limited conditions, not applicable herein.

The  Administsrator appears to have permitted the prior  tenant's
final  rent  to  serve  as the base rent for  the  vacancy  lease
without establishing how the owner arrived at that rent. Although
not  specifically set forth in the order below, the Administrator
appears  to  have  concluded that the owner  utilized  superceded
regulations  that permitted adjustment during  the  term  of  the
lease.   Consequently  the  matter  should  be  remanded  to  the
Administrator to ascertain if the owner utilized the proper  base
rent for the tenant's vacancy lease.

In  this regard, the Commissioner notes that an owner is required
to  maintain and produce a complete rental history subject to the
provisions  of  the  regulation and to respond  to  the  tenant's
com-plaint.  A change of ownership, doesn't relieve an owner from
the obligation to produce relevant leases or other business

On remand, the Administrator shall also ascertain if the security
deposit   required   by  the  owner  was   excessive.    At   the
Administra-tor's discretion, the issue of treble damages  may  be

In  light of the separate lease renewal proceedings, noted above,
the  petitioner's request that the lease period be adjusted  need
not be considered herein.

THEREFORE,  in  accordance with the Emergency  Tenant  Protection
Act,  and the Tenant Protection Regulations, Chapter 403  of  the
Laws  of  1983,  and  Chapter  102  of  the  Laws  of  1984,   as
imple-mented by Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

ORDERED,  that the tenant's petition be, and the same hereby  is,
granted  in  part;  and that the proceeding be  remanded  to  the
Ad-ministrator    for   further   consideration.     Pending    a
determination  by the Administrator on remand, the  determination
below remains in full force and effect.


                                         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