BF 210235 RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK   11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  BF 210235 RO

                     BURCHELL BLACK,              DRO ORDER NO.:  CDR 30,436
                                                  TENANT:  RITA WILKINSON
                                                  NEW OWNER:  MATTHEW PETERS


          On June  29,  1987,  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          June 1, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle,  New
          York, New York, concerning housing accommodations  known  as  2nd
          Floor Apartment, 21 East 88th Street, Brooklyn, New York, wherein 
          the  Rent  Administrator  determined  that  there  had  been   an
          overcharge of $1,072.01, including interest and excess security. 

          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  on  December  21,  1982  by
          filing  an  overcharge  complaint  with   the   New   York   City
          Conciliation  and  Appeals  Board  (CAB),  the  agency   formerly
          charged with enforcing the Rent Stabilization Law, based  on  the
          allegation that the owner had imposed rent increases in excess of 
          those allowed by the applicable Rent Guidelines Board orders.

          In answer to the complaint, the owner stated that it had added  a
          "reasonable" one percent increase to the 1981 renewal  leases  as
          compensation for alleged  damage  to  the  apartment.   After  an
          unrelated court proceeding, a six month lease was agreed upon  at
          the expiration of which the tenant agreed  to  vacate.   However,
          the tenant refused to vacate at the end of that  lease  term  and
          was a "holdover" tenant at the time of the owner's answer in this 
          proceeding, paying the same rent as during the six month lease.

          The owner also made certain allegations about  the  tenant  which
          are not relevant to this proceeding.

          In reply, the tenant denied that the damage had been the fault of 
          the tenant and made certain allegations regarding  other  service

          BF 210235 RO
          problems in the subject premises.  The tenant admitted stating to 
          the judge  in  the  above-described  court  proceeding  that  she
          intended to vacate the apartment after  six  months,  but  denied
          ever promising to do so.

          In Order Number CDR 30,436, the Rent Administrator  computed  the
          overcharge through October 31, 1984.

          In  this   petition,   the   owner   contends   that   the   Rent
          Administrator's Order is incorrect and should be modified because 
          the Administrator failed to show that the first renewal lease was 
          for six months and had been preceded  by  a  three  month  period
          with no lease at the prior lease rent and followed by  a  fifteen
          month period at the rate of the six month lease.

          The tenant did  not  answer  this  petition,  although  give  the
          opportunity to do so.

          The Commissioner notes that on June 19, 1987 the tenant  filed  a
          petition in which she submitted a rent chart  alleging  different
          lease periods than those  shown  on  the  Administrator's  chart.
          That petition was rejected on  November  16,  1988  under  Docket
          Number BF-210199-RT.  The tenant was  afforded  fifteen  days  in
          which to refile her petition.  To date no such refiling has  been
          received.  As stated in the rejection order,  failure  to  timely
          refile  results  in  the  automatic  dismissal  of  the  tenant's
          petition.  Therefore, that petition has been dismissed and is not 
          herein under consideration.

          The Commissioner is of the  opinion  that  the  owner's  petition
          should be granted.

          The record clearly supports the allegations of  the  owner.   The
          attached rent calculation chart, commencing with the  complaining
          tenant's initial lease, shows  the  correct  rental  history  and
          overcharges.  The Commissioner notes that  the  six  month  lease
          commenced under Guidelines Order  Thirteen  which  provided  that
          renewal leases for less than one year can receive  the  one  year
          Guidelines  increase,  here  10%.   The  additional  one  percent
          charged by the owner is disallowed herein  without  prejudice  to
          the owner's right, if any, to proceed against the tenant for  any
          damage to  the  subject  apartment.   Similarly,  this  Order  is
          without prejudice  to  the  tenant's  right  to  file  a  service
          complaint, if the facts so warrant.

          Since the owner failed to either enforce the  alleged  six  month
          agreement or give the tenant a new lease for fifteen months after 
          the expiration of the six month lease, the owner does not receive 
          the benefit of  a  Guidelines  increase  for  the  fifteen  month

          The Commissioner notes that the  parties  have  stated  that  the
          subject building was sold on September 1, 1985, i.e.,  after  the
          computation date of the Administrator's Order.

          Rent Stabilization Code Section 2526.1(f)  provides  that  a  new
          owner is responsible for all overcharges collected  on  or  after
          April 1, 1984, even for a complaint filed prior to that date.
          However, the new owner was never made a party to this proceeding. 

          BF 210235 RO
          Accordingly, on May 15, 1991 the new owner,  was  served  with  a
          copy  of  the  Administrator's  order  as  well  as  the  owner's
          petition and given 35 days in which to respond thereto.  The  new
          owner was also informed that it could be held responsible in this 
          Order for all overcharges from April 1, 1984 to the date of  this
          Order.  In addition the former owner-petitioner was informed that 
          this Order would compute overcharges subsequent  to  October  31,
          1984, the computation date of  the  Administrator's  order.   All
          three parties were  requested  to  submit  leases  subsequent  to
          October 31, 1984 and  to  notify  the  Division  of  any  refunds
          already made.

          To date only the tenant has responded to the notices sent on 
          May 15, 1991.  The tenant  submitted  leases  from  1983  to  the
          present and did not state that any refund  had  been  made.   The
          attached rent calculation chart  shows  the  overcharges  through
          September 30, 1991.

          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 in the  amount  of
          all overcharges collected by the prior owner, petitioner  herein,
          with interest on those collected on or after April 1, 1984, i.e., 
          $154.54.  The  overcharges  with  interest  and  excess  security
          collected by the current owner total, $309.90.  Not in excess  of
          twenty percent thereof per month may be offset against  any  rent
          thereafter due the owner.

          In the alternative, all overcharges collected by the prior  owner
          through March 31, 1984, i.e., $94.08,  can  be  enforced  by  the
          tenant as a judgment against  the  prior  owner  and  $374.09  in
          overcharges, interest and excess security can be  offset  against
          the rent as above.  (The $3.93 discrepancy in totals  is  due  to
          the allocation of interest.)

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

          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.

                                                  ELLIOT SANDER
                                                  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