DOC. NO.: BF 210286-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
         APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: BF 210286-RO
                                                DRO DOCKET NO.:
              PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT CORP.,  :              K-3102017-R/T
                                 PETITIONER  :   TENANT:  GEORGE BISHOP
         ------------------------------------X


             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


         On June 25, 1987, the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition 
         for Administrative Review against an order issued on May 28, 1987, by 
         the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York, 
         concerning housing accommodations known as Apartment 4F, 1015 
         Washington Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent 
         Administrator determined that there had been an overcharge and 
         ordered a refund of $784.80, 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 March 31, 1984 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 in part on an alleged failure by the owner 
         to provide a complete rental history.  The tenant filed a Fair 
         Market Rent Appeal (FMRA) at the same time.  The proceedings were 
         consolidated under the above docket number.

         In answer to the complaint, the owner submitted a completely 
         documented lease history from the base date.

         Based on that lease history, in Order Number CDR 30,361, herein 
         under review, the Rent Administrator properly processed the 
         proceedings as a rent overcharge complaint and determined that there 
         had been an overcharge commencing with the tenant's 1978-1980 
         renewal lease.

















         DOC. NO.: BF 210286-RO

         In this petition, the owner contends that the Rent Administrator's 
         Order is incorrect and should be modified because the Rent 
         Administrator used the rent $381.95 for the 1986-1988 lease period, 
         whereas the correct rent for that period was alleged to be $362.12, 
         being the sum of $346.95, the "base rent," plus a charge of $5.59 
         for a major capital improvement (MCI) increase, plus $9.58, whose 
         source was not specified by the owner.

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

         On March 4, 1991 the parties were given the opportunity to present 
         further evidence.  Specifically, the tenant was advised to submit 
         proof of the rent paid during the 1986-88 lease period and the 
         amount and date of any MCI increase.  The owner was sent a copy of 
         the 1986-88 lease showing a rent of $381.95 and asked for proof that 
         (a) the rent was $362.12 and (b) $346.95 was the "base rent."  In 
         addition, the owner was asked to submit copies of MCI orders 
         allowing rent increases of $5.59 and $9.58 as well as rent ledgers 
         or other proof of the rent actually collected during the 1986-88 
         lease period.  To date neither party has responded to the March 4, 
         1991 requests.

         The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 
         denied.

         The Rent Administrator computed the overcharges based on the lease 
         history submitted by the owner.  No lease submitted by the owner, or 
         referred to by the tenant, had a rent of either the alleged $346.95 
         "base rent" or the alleged $362.12 rent for the 1986-88 lease term.

         Division records show that the owner received an MCI increase under 
         docket number Z KCS-000755-OM whereby the owner was allowed, 
         effective July 1, 1986, to add 2.67% and 1.56% of the July  1985     
         rent ($358.64) as, respectively, permanent and temporary rent 
         increases.  These percentages equal the $9.58 and $5.59 figures 
         mentioned  in the owner's petition.  Had the owner taken these 
         increases, both the rent charged and the lawful rent would have 
         increased by the same amount, leaving the overcharge unchanged. [The 
         registered rent for the 1986-1988 lease, $356.53, bears no apparent 
         relationship to either the rent stated in the lease, the lawful 
         rent found by the Administrator for the period ($373.01), or the 
         amount alleged in the petition.]








         Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the owner has failed to 




         DOC. NO.: BF 210286-RO
         prove any error in the Administrator's May 28, 1987 order, which was 
         issued before the effective date of the above-cited MCI order (July 
         1, 1987). [The Administrator's order computed overcharges through 
         May 31, 1987.] Therefore, this petition must be denied.

         The Commissioner notes that the $358.64 rent used to calculate the 
         MCI increases of $9.58 and $5.59 was found by the Administrator to 
         have been an overcharge.  The MCI increases should have been 
         computed from the lawful rent of $350.24.

         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 enforced by the tenant by 
         offsetting not in excess of twenty percent thereof per month against 
         any rent thereafter due the owner.

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

         ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and 
         the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

         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