STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: BD 210192-RT
DRO ORDER NO.
ANN LAHIFF, PETITIONER : CDR 29,581
------------------------------------X OWNER: B.A.M. MANAGEMENT
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 30, 1987, the above named petitioner-tenant filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on March
26, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York,
New York, concerning housing accommodations known as Apartment 4L,
691 Union Street, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent
Administrator determined that there had been an overcharge and
ordered a refund of $3297.47, including treble damages and excess
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 administrative appeal.
The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing an overcharge
complaint with the New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board,
the predecessor of the DHCR, based in part on an alleged failure by
the owner to provide a complete rental history.
The owner failed to provide a full rental history.
Based on the owner's default, in Order Number CDR 29,581, the Rent
Administrator established the lawful stabilized rent for the
tenant's vacancy lease pursuant to former Code Section 42A as
$300.00 per month, which figure was stated to be the lowest rent in
the same line as the subject apartment.
In this petition, the tenant contends that the Rent Administrator's
Order is incorrect and should be modified because in fact $251.90,
the rent of apartment 3L, was the lowest rent in the line. (The
Administrator had used the rent of apartment 1L.) In addition, the
tenant alleges that the Administrator failed to include the
overcharge for the month February 15, 1984 through March 14, 1984,
during which the tenant did not have a lease and paid the rent of
the prior lease.
DOC. NO. BD 210192-RT
DOC. NO.: BD 210192-RT
The owner did not answer this petition, although given the
opportunity to do so.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
The Administrator's file contains a rent roll dated November 26,
1986 showing the rent of apartment 3L as $251.90 and that of
apartment 1L as $300.00. Furthermore, the chart states explicitly
that the lowest rent was $251.90. Apparently the Administrator
simply made a clerical error in using $300.00 as the lowest
comparable rent. Furthermore, the tenant is also correct that the
Administrator did not include the above-stated month in the
Accordingly, the Administrator's calculations are corrected as
1) The 12 month $25.00 overcharge commencing February 15,
1983 is corrected to be a 13 (sic) month overcharge of
$73.10, totalling $ 950.30.
2) The 24 month $26.75 overcharge commencing
March 15, 1984 (with treble damages on the
overcharges collected on or after April 1,
1984) is corrected to be a 24 month over-
charge of $78.22 totalling (with treble
3) The 12.55 month $28.48 overcharge commencing
March 15, 1986 (with treble damages) is
corrected to be a 12.55 month overcharge of
$68.30 totalling (with treble damages) $2,571.51.
4) Excess security is increased from $28.48 to $ 68.30.
5) Total corrected overcharge with treble
damages and excess security (through
March 31, 1987): $9,135.91.
This order may, upon the expiration of the period in which the
owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Article 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 and Code, it
DOC. NO. BD 210192-RT
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted and
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, modified
in accordance with this Order and Opinion to show a total
overcharge of $9,135.91, including treble damages and excess