BF 110335 RO, BF 110313 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 :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NO. BF 110335 RO,
                                              :             BF 110313 RO
            SUNNY HILL GARDENS ASSOCIATES        DRO DOCKET NO.40735, 
                                                               40952
                                PETITIONER    :  TENANTS: OLGA & GABRIEL 
          ------------------------------------X           GONZALEZ, DONALD    
                                                         & VICTORIA CHESLER 
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               The above-named petitioner-owner filed timely Petitions for 
          Administrative Review against orders issued on April 29, 1987 and 
          May 7, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New 
          York, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 39-60 
          52nd Street, Queens, New York, Apartment No. 5E and 39-55 51st 
          Street, Queens, New York, Apartment No. 2B, (same apartment 
          complex), wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the 
          tenants had been overcharged.  Since these petitions involve 
          common issues of law and fact, they have been consolidated for 
          processing herein.

          The Administrative Appeals are being determined pursuant to 
          the provisions of Section 2526.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's orders 
          were warranted.

          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 appeals.  

          These proceedings were originally commenced by the filing of 
          Tenant's Objection to Rent Forms in which the tenants stated inter 
          alia that they had been overcharged.

          In answer to the objections, the owner submitted rental 
          histories for the subject apartments from the April 1, 1980 base 
          date.

          In Order Number 40735, the Rent Administrator determined that 
          there was a rent overcharge of $1.54 for Apartment 5E through 
          April 30, 1981, and directed the owner to refund such overcharge 
          to the tenant.

          In Order Number 40952, the Rent Administrator determined that 
          there was a rent overcharge of $29.59 for Apartment 2B through May 
          31, 1987, and directed the owner to refund such overcharge to the 










          BF 110335 RO, BF 110313 RO

          tenant.

          In these petitions, the owner contends in substance that 
          there were no rent overcharges in that the Rent Administrator 
          improperly calculated the rent reductions due to the change from 
          electrical inclusion to exclusion pursuant to CAB Docket 22,992 
          (applicable to both subject apartments) and improperly calculated 
          the major capital improvement rent increase pursuant to CDR Order 
          Number 6248 (applicable to both subject apartments).

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions 
          should be denied.

          In these cases, the owner has submitted insufficient evidence 
          to determine if the Rent Administrator in fact incorrectly 
          calculated the rent reductions due to the electrical exclusion or 
          incorrectly calculated the major capital improvement rent 
          increase.  Any such calculation errors would have been minor in 
          nature as evidenced by the amount of the overcharges found.  
          However, it is noted that the Rent Administrator in his 
          calculations did not subtract the prior electrical inclusion 
          allowances made during earlier guideline periods due to 
          electrical inclusion in the rent as required when the change from 
          electrical inclusion to exclusion was made.  It is further noted 
          that application of the correct processing procedure (subtracting 
          the electrical inclusion allowances) would more than negate any 
          benefit to the owner based on the argument raised by the owner in 
          its petitions.  As such, and in the absence of timely petitions 
          for administrative review by the tenants, the Commissioner finds 
          it appropriate to deny these appeals.

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

          ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative review be, 
          and the same hereby are, denied, and, that the orders of the Rent 
          Administrator be, and the same hereby are, affirmed.

          ISSUED



                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Deputy Commissioner




                     










          BF 110335 RO, BF 110313 RO




























    

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