BD 510097-RT; BD 410284-RO
                                  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
          APPEAL OF                            ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                               DOCKET NOS.: BD 510097-RT
                                                            BD 410284-RO
                      PARK WEST 
              MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, OWNER    DRO DOCKET NOS.: L-3114469-R
                         AND                                    CDR 29434
             KENNETH MACLEOD, JR., TENANT,                       
                                                  

                                PETITIONERS
          ----------------------------------X


          ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN PART


          On April 1, 1987 the above-named petitioner-owner, and  on  April
          12, 1987 the above-named petitioner-tenant, filed  Petitions  for
          Administrative Review against an order issued on March  12,  1987
          by the District Rent  Administrator,   10  Columbus  Circle,  New
          York,  New  York  concerning  housing  accommodations  known   as
          Apartment 16D at 400  Central  Park  West,  New  York,  New  York
          wherein the District Rent Administrator determined that the owner 
          had overcharged the tenant.

          The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was  filed  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
          provision  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  issue  in  this  appeal  is  whether   the   District   Rent
          Administrator's order was warranted.

          The applicable sections of the Law  are  Section  26-516  of  the
          Rent Stabilization Law and Section 2526.1(a) of the current  Rent
          Stabilization Code.

          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 in  March,
          1984 of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant,  in  which  he






          BD 510097-RT; BD 410284-RO
          stated that he had commenced occupancy on April  19,  1979  at  a
          rent of $ 581.88 per month.

          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  an  order  issued  on  March  12,  1987  the  District   Rent
          Administrator determined that the tenant had been overcharged  in
          the amount of $1,093.01 as of March 31, 1985,  and  directed  the
          owner to refund such overcharge to  the  tenant  as  well  as  to
          reduce the rent.

          In its petition (Docket No. BD 410284-RO) against the order,  the
          owner   contends   in   substance   that   the   District    Rent
          Administrator's order failed to take into account the full amount 
          of increases due to new equipment as well as Guidelines  increase
          based on the equipment cost, and that the  Administrator's  order
          reflects overcharges on amounts that were  actually  refunded  to
          the tenant after the Supreme Court reversed a hardship  increase.
          With its petition the owner has enclosed rent rolls for a  number
          of months in 1980, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

          In his petition (Docket No. BD 510097-RT), the tenant asserts  in
          substance that the order should take into  account  leases  after
          the last one considered by the Administrator. With  his  petition
          the tenant has enclosed two 2-year lease renewals  commencing  in
          1985 and 1987.  In answer, the owner  asserts  that  it  received
          only the "Affidavit of Service" page  of  the  tenant's  petition
          and should be sent the remainder.  This has not been  done  since
          the leases  simply  duplicate  information  registered  with  the
          Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)  by  the  owner,
          and since the tenant's request  to  consider  leases  after  1985
          could have been done at the Administrator's own initiative.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be 
          granted in part.

          In the proceeding before the Administrator  the  owner  submitted
          invoices and bills of lading for several hundred air conditioners 
          and air coolers of several  different  models  and  prices.   The
          Administrator gave  the  owner  credit  for  one  each  of  three
          different models.  The owner on appeal claims two  units  of  the
          most expensive model, purchased two years prior to the  time  the
          complainant commenced occupancy, and one unit  of  another  model
          purchased 22 months prior.  Although the  owner  is  claiming  to
          enclose a copy of its earlier answer, most of  the  invoices  for
          the units now claimed were not submitted earlier, and most of the 
          air  conditioner  and  air   cooler   invoices   used   for   the
          Administrator's  determination  are  not  included  in  what   is
          purported to be a copy of the earlier answer.  Because  of  these
          factors and the fact that the owner has not  submitted  any  work
          orders or other evidence of the installation  of  any  particular
          models in the subject apartment, the Commissioner does  not  find
          sufficient  justification  for   changing   the   Administrator's
          determination as to which units were installed.







          BD 510097-RT; BD 410284-RO
          The Administrator was correct in adding the $29.61  increase  for
          new equipment to the complainant's vacancy rent after calculating 
          the vacancy rent on the basis of  a  previous  rent  of  $463.19.
          Guidelines 10 and 10a are applied to the rent charged and paid as 
          of June 30, 1978, the last day of the previous Guidelines period. 
          The new equipment charge was not paid as of June 30, 1978, and in 
          fact had never been paid by  any  tenant  at  any  time,  so  the
          Guidelines 10 and 10a increase did not apply to it.

          Both the tenant and the owner  agree  that  the  initial  $581.88
          lease rent was reduced, retroactively by a refund, to $547.98, so 
          the Administrator should not have calculated overcharges  on  the
          basis of a rent of $581.88.  The Administrator's rent calculation 
          chart also did not show the tenant as paying a  $12.00  Guideline
          10c fuel surcharge, despite  the  rent  bills  submitted  by  the
          tenant  showing  that  he  had  done  so.   (While  the  tenant's
          complaint and rent bills show the owner as  having  continued  to
          charge the Guideline 10c surcharge for 3 months of the next 
          lease, and then charging the Guideline 10d surcharge of $8.00 for 
          a further 3 months, the tenant's complaint  indicated  that  this
          overcharge of $60.00 was refunded as a credit  on  his  November,
          1980 rent bill.)  The Guideline 10b fuel  surcharge  should  have
          been calculated as 2 1/2% of the March 1,  1979  lawful  rent  of
          $463.19 and not of the complainant's April 1, 1979 vacancy  rent.
          The Administrator also failed to  take  into  account  the  $8.00
          Guideline 11a fuel surcharge which the tenant's rent bills showed 
          him to  have  paid.   Taking  these  factors  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.

          At the time that  the  Administrator's  order  was  issued,  DHCR
          records contained an apartment registration showing the tenant as 
          having a lease through March 31, 1987 at a rent of $777.68.  This 
          has been confirmed by the lease submitted by the tenant  and  the
          rent roll submitted by the  owner.   The  Commissioner  finds  it
          appropriate to calculate overcharges through March 31, 1987,  the
          month of the Administrator's order as well as the last  month  of
          that lease.  No overcharge has been calculated in the next lease, 
          as the Administrator's order of March 12,  1987  would  not  have
          been able to calculate overcharges on rents not  yet  paid  in  a
          lease not yet in effect.  

          Because this order determines lawful rents and  overcharges  only
          through March 31, 1987, the owner is cautioned to adjust the rent 
          in leases after  that  date  to  amounts  no  greater  than  that
          determined by this  order  plus  any  lawful  increases,  and  to
          register any adjusted rents, with this order being given  as  the
          reason for the adjustment.  If the owner  does  not  do  so,  the
          tenant should file an overcharge  complaint,  referring  to  this
          order.  Because of the  possibility  that  the  tenant  may  have
          vacated prior to the issuance of this order, a  copy  thereof  is
          also being mailed to the tenant-in-occupancy.

          This order may, upon the expiration of the period  in  which  the
          owner may institute a proceedi g  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






          BD 510097-RT; BD 410284-RO
          rent thereafter due the owner.

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

          ORDERED, that these  petitions  be,  and  the  same  hereby  are,
          granted in part and that the Administrator's order  be,  and  the
          same hereby is,  modified  in  accordance  with  this  Order  and
          Opinion.  The  lawful  stabilization  rents  and  the  amount  of
          overcharge are set forth on the attached rent calculation  chart,
          which is fully made a part of this order.  The  total  overcharge
          for the period through March 31, 1987, excess security of $15.86, 
          is $1,296.35.




          ISSUED:

                                                  ------------------------
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  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