DOC. NO.: BF 210286-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.: BF 210286-RO
DRO DOCKET NO.:
PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT CORP., : K-3102017-R/T
PETITIONER : TENANT: GEORGE BISHOP
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
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,
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
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,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA