BE 410408 RO
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.: BE 410408 RO
125 EAST 31ST STREET REALTY COMPANY,
DRO DOCKET NO.: TC-073678-G
TENANT: LOLA ABT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 21, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review of an order issued on April
16, 1987, by the District Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle,
New York, New York, concerning housing accommodations known as
Apartment 10F, located at 121 East 31st Street, New York, New
York wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the tenant
had been overcharged.
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, and this proceeding is being determined
in accordance therewith.
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.
This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing of a rent
overcharge complaint by the tenant with the New York City
Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB), one of the predecessor
agencies to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).
The tenant took occupancy pursuant to a lease commencing November
1, 1979 and expiring October 31, 1981 at a monthly rent of
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 stated
that the apartment was decontrolled on January 1, 1976; and that
"new services had been added which make up the difference between
BE 410408 RO
the actual and maximum increases".
The owner submitted among other things, copies of all leases from
January 1, 1976, except that of tenant Sturm, who the owner
indicated occupied the apartment from July 1, 1979 through
In Order Number 30,005, the District Rent Administrator
determined that the tenant was overcharged in the amount of
$6,475.46, including interest on overcharges collected on or
after April 1, 1984, and directed that the owner refund such
amount to the tenant. The District Rent Administrator
established the lawful stabilized rent at $460.43 per month
through October 31, 1986, and directed that the rent be rolled
back to that sum, with subsequent renewals and vacancy leases to
be computed above this rent.
In this petition, the owner contends that the District Rent
Administrator's order was incomplete, as it failed to include a
copy of the rent calculation chart; and that the owner had no
basis for review of the order. On July 18, 1991 the owner was
sent a copy of the rent calculation charts. In answer the owner
asserted that the calculations were incorrect, specifically
noting the increase for lease number 5 (November 1, 1979 to
October 31, 1981), and alleged that the lawful rent for that
lease term should have been $392.28, rather than the $362.90
permitted by the Administrator.
In answer to this petition, the tenant contends that the order
should be upheld because her initial rent was in excess of the
lawful stabilization rent.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
The Commissioner finds that the Court-approved rule prohibiting
the compounding of guidelines increases within the same
guidelines period is applicable to the instant proceeding.
The owner's allegation of error regarding the Administrator's
finding that the legal regulated rent for lease number 5 in the
rent calculation chart was $362.90, when viewed in light of the
aforementioned provision, can clearly be seen to be mistaken:
lease number 4, commencing July 1, 1979, and lease number 5,
commencing November 1, 1979, both fall under Rent Guidelines
Board Order Number 11. Increasing $295.40 (the legal regulated
rent charged and paid on June 30, 1979) by a 5% vacancy increase
for lease No. 4, plus 17% (5% vacancy and 12% guidelines increase
under Rent Guidelines Board Order Number 11) brings the legal
regulated rent to the $362.90 found by the Administrator.
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
rent thereafter due the owner.
BE 410408 RO
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA