BD 110473-RO
                        STATE OF NEW YORK
                           GERTZ PLAZA
                     92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                     JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO. BD 110473-RO

       KEW ASSOCIATES,                  DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO. Q 3119940-R
                        PETITIONER      TENANTS: WILFREDO & DAWN

                             IN PART
On  April  31,  1987, the above-named owner filed a petition  for
administrative review of an order issued on April 13, 1987  by  a
District Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations
known as Apartment 5-D, 131-11 Kew Gardens Road, Richmond Hill,
New York, wherein the Administrator determined that an overcharge
had occurred.

The  Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record
and  has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the petition for review.

This  proceeding was commenced on March 22, 1984 upon the  filing
of  a  general complaint of rent overcharge.  The tenant  stated,
among  other things, that he had not been presented with a rental
history and that he was being charged for a garage space which he
neither requested nor used.

In its answer, the owner stated that no overcharge occurred.  The
owner  stated that a garage space was included in the  rent,  and
that  the  tenant  was paying less than the lawful  stabilization
rent.   The  owner  submitted with its answer a completed  answer
form  and complete copies of all leases from the base rent  date.
The  owner also noted that it had taken possession of the subject
building in April 1984.

In the order here under review, the Administrator established the
lawful  stabilization rent of $406.02 as of April 1, 1986 through
March 31, 1987 and directed the owner to refund overcharges of

$2,814.40 including interest on overcharges after April 1,  1984.
The Administrator specifically noted in the order and calculation
chart  that  the owner was not entitled to collect two  guideline
increases in the same guideline period and that the garage was to
be included in the rent.

In  its  petition  for administrative review the  owner  requests
re-versal  of the Administrator's order.  The owner restates  the
arguments  made below and resubmits its calculations.  The  owner
states,  in  substance, that the overcharges  were  significantly
lower.   It emphasizes that a lease term of a prior tenant begin-
ning  June 1, 1979 should have been based on a figure of  $252.65
and not $235.00 as the Administrator computed.

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

The  Administrator correctly based the rental on the lower figure
($235.00) and correctly stated in the order the reason  for  this
action.  To repeat the Administrator's finding, an owner may  not
compound guideline increases during the same guideline period.
This  rule  against  "piggybacking"  increases  within  the  same
guide-line  period  is  the result of the  Corporation  Counsel's
Advisory  Opinion No. 107261 and was later approved by the  court
in  Matter of Auburndale Apartments, Inc. v. Popolizio, N.Y.L.J.,
October  10,  1980, P.14, Col. 3 (Sup. Ct., Queens Co.,  Giaccio,

In  this  case,  one prior tenant's renewal lease term  began  on
October  1,  1978  and  his rent was increased  from  $235.00  to
$252.65.   The  next prior tenant's vacancy lease term  began  on
June  1,  1979.  Because both lease terms began during Guidelines
Numbers  10a, 10b, the lease beginning June 1, 1979 was correctly
based on the figure $235.00 and not $252.65.

However, the Commissioner notes that the Administrator did make a
typographical  error  in  his order.  The Administrator's  order,
while  otherwise  correct, simply added  the  overcharge  figures
incorrectly,  and the total overcharge should have  been  $802.81
rather  than $2,814.40.  Accordingly, the Commissioner is of  the
opinion that the order of the District Rent Administrator  should
be corrected.

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

ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted
in part, and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, modified in accordance with this order and opinion; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the prior owner Kew Manor Associates  shall
immediately  refund to the tenants, who have  vacated  the  prem-
ises,  $184.44 representing overcharges prior to April  1,  1984;
and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that if the prior owner Kew Manor Associates has
not refunded the stated amounts upon the expiration of the period
for seeking judicial review of this order pursuant to Article  78
of  the  Civil Practice Law and Rules, the tenants may  file  and
en-force  a  certified copy of this order as a judgment  for  the
amount of $184.44 against Kew Manor Associates; and it is

FURTHER  ORDERED, that the owner Kew Associates shall immediately
refund  to  the  tenants, who have vacated the premises,  $618.37
representing  overcharges from April 1, 1984  including  interest
and excess security; and it is

FURTHER  ORDERED, that if the owner Kew Associates  has  not  re-
funded  the stated amounts upon the expiration of the period  for
seeking judicial review of this order pursuant to Article  78  of
the Civil Practice Law and Rules, the tenants may file and en-
force a certified copy of this order as a judgment for the amount
of $618.37 against Kew Associates.


                                         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