BF-410246-RO; CC 410366-RT
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. BF 410246-RO
                                                            CC 410366-RT

                                              :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
               Jean Angelini, tenant,            DOCKET NO. 61421-G,
                    and                                     L-001796-R
               Steinberg & Dubin Memorial,
               Inc., owner,

                                  PETITIONERS : 

                              FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above owner's and  tenant's  administrative  appeals  are  in
          objection to separate administrative orders  involving  the  same
          owner and tenant.  These  appeals  are  herein  combined  in  the
          instant order and opinion.

          On  June  10,  1987  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued  under
          Docket Number 61421 G on May 6, 1987,  by  a  Rent  Administrator
          concerning  the  housing  accommodations  known  as  190  Norfolk
          Street, New York, New York, Apartment No.  1A  wherein  the  Rent
          Administrator determined  that  the  owner  had  overcharged  the
          On March 11,  1988  the  above-named  petitioner-tenant  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative against an order issued under  Docket
          number L 001796 R on February 9, 1988  by  a  Rent  Administrator
          concerning the  same  housing  accommodations  wherein  the  Rent
          Administrator  determined  that   the   tenant   had   not   been

          The Commissioner notes that this proceeding under  Docket  Number
          61421 G was filed 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.

          The Administrative Appeal is being  determined  pursuant  to  the
          provisions of Section 42A of the former Rent Stabilization Code.

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

          BF-410246-RO; CC 410366-RT

          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.  

          This  proceeding  was  originally  commenced  by  the  filing  on
          February 22, 1982 of a rent overcharge complaint  by  the  tenant
          (Docket Number 61421 G).

          The tenant had assumed occupancy on June 1, 1980  pursuant  to  a
          three year lease at a rent of  $350.00  per  month.   The  tenant
          stated that although the owner told her  the  apartment  was  not
          rent stabilized, her rent was recently increased $8.00 per  month
          as a fuel pass along, which was only for rent stabilized tenants. 
          She also discovered that the previous tenant paid  a  much  lower

          In its answer, the owner submitted an affidavit  from  the  prior
          tenant  which  stated  that  the  prior  tenant  moved  into  the
          apartment on August 1, 1977 and had been given the  DC-2  notice.
          The prior  tenant's  affidavit  also  stated  that  he  had  been
          superintendent of the building, but  paid  rent  of  $215.00  per
          month and never had a lease.  The owner  stated  that  since  the
          subject apartment was a superintendent's apartment, it was rented 
          to the complainant at fair market value.

          On May 6, 1987 the Rent Adinistrator issued an order under Docket 
          Number  61421  G  (Order  Number  CDR  30,192)  wherein  it   was
          determined  that  the  tenant  had  been  overcharged  $8,473.77,
          including excess security and interest on all overcharges  on  or
          after April 1, 1984.  The order stated that the subject apartment 
          was not elegible for exemption from the Rent  Stabilization  Code
          under Section 2(g) because, as provided  in  subdivision  (4)  of
          that Section, the exemption does n t  apply  unless  the  tenant-
          employee pays no rent, which was not the case  with  the  subject
          apartment; that the initial  stabilized  rent  for  the  previous
          tenant was $215.00; and that the  lawful  vacancy  rent  for  the
          tenant was $258.00, for  an  initial  overcharge  of  $92.00  per
          month (Guidelines 11 increase over July 1, 1979 rent  of  $215.00
          of 15% for 3 year vacancy lease + 5% vacancy allowance = $258.00; 
          $350.00 - $258.00 = $92.00).

          Subsequent to the filing of the initial overcharge complaint, the 
          tenant filed a second overcharge complaint on May 1, 1985 wherein 
          she stated that she had been sent a  copy  of  the  1984  initial
          registration (Docket Number L 001796 R).

          On February 9, 1988, a Rent Administrator issued an  order  under
          Docket Number L-001796-R, which determined  that  there  were  no
          overcharges because the initial April 1, 1984 registered rent  of
          $385.00 per month had not been challenged  by  the  tenant  in  a
          timely manner and, as a result, became the lawful rent.

          In its petition of the order issued under Docket Number 61421  G,
          the owner contends, inter alia, that the apartment does  in  fact
          qualify  for  exemption  under  Section   2(g)(4)   because   the
          superintendent who lived in the apartment did not  have  a  lease
          and therefore cannot be said to have paid "rent."   Instead,  the

          BF-410246-RO; CC 410366-RT
          superintendent  gave  "consideration"  for  his  lodging  in  the
          apartment, which was incident to his employment, and  not  "rent"
          as defined by the Rent Stabilization Code.  The petition  further
          contends that, on information and belief, the  tenant  had  filed
          another overcharge complaint  which  was  dismissed  because  the
          subject apartment was ruled to be exempt.

          In her answer to the owner's petition, the tenant submits letters 
          from two other tenants who dispute the  owner's  claim  that  the
          apartment was  formerly  occupied  by  the  superintendent.   The
          tenant also notes that as long as the owner collected rent in any 
          amount, the exemption under Section 2(g)(4) does not apply.

          In her petition of the order issued under Docket Number L001796R, 
          the tenant contends that her objection to the April 1, 1984  rent
          was unnecessary  because  her  original  complaint  predates  the
          registration, and dates back to her  objection  to  her  original
          June 1, 1980 rent of $350.00.  The  tenant  contends,  therefore,
          that she is entitled to all relief from overcharges  dating  from
          the original complaint.

          In its answer to the tenant's petition, the owner contends, inter 
          alis, that the  Administrator  properly  dismissed  the  tenant's
          complaint because it was not filed within 90 days of her  receipt
          of the initial registration, and was therefore invalid.

          The Commissioner is of the considered opinion  that  the  owner's
          petition should  be  denied,  the  tenant's  petition  should  be
          granted and the Administrator's order issued under Docket # 
          L-001796-R, should be revoked.

          Section 2(g)(4) of the former Rent  Stabilization  Code  provides
          for an exemption from the RSC for, iter alia:

               (4)   dwelling  units   occupied   by   domestic   servants,
                    superintendents,   caretakers,   managers   or    other
                    employees to whom the space is provided as part or  all
                    of their compensation without payment of rent  and  who
                    are employed for the purpose of rendering  services  in
                    connection with the  premises  of  which  the  dwelling
                    units  is  a  part,  but  exempt  solely   during   the
                    continuation of such occupancy;

          The record in this case establishes that the tenant prior to  the
          complainant was superintendent of the subject building, but  paid
          rent of $215.00 per month.  Since  the  above  provision  of  the
          Rent  Stabilization  Code  only  exempts  apartments   from   its
          jurisdiction if the tenant-employee pays no rent, it was properly 
          determined by the Rent Administrator in Docket # 61421-G that the 
          subject-apartment was not exempt from the RSC.  Accordingly,  the
          lawful rent and  amount  of  overcharges  as  determined  by  the
          Administrator in the  order  issued  under  Docket  #61421-G  are

          The tenant's petition correctly contends that the fact  that  the
          tenant did not file a timely objection to the initial  registered
          rent of April 1, 1984 does not deprive her of the full measure of 
          relief provided in the Rent Stabilization Code, since the  tenant
          had preserved her right  when  she  filed  the  first  overcharge

          BF-410246-RO; CC 410366-RT

          The second, unnecessary complaint, which was filed by the  tenant
          before the DHCR issued an order relating to the first  complaint,
          has no effect on the validity of the first Administrative  order,
          affirmed above.   The  Commissioner  hereby  revokes  the  second
          Administrator's order issued under Docket No. L-001796-R.

          Because this determination concerns  lawful  rents  only  through
          May 6, 1987 the owner is cautioned to adjust subsequent rents  to
          an  amount  no  greater  than  that  determined   by   the   Rent
          Administrator's order plus any lawful increases, and to  register
          any adjusted rents with this order and opinion being given as the 
          explanation for the adjustment.

          This order may, upon the expiration of the period  in  which  the
          owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Article  78  of  the
          Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and enforced in the same 
          manner as a judgment or not in excess of twenty percent per month 
          thereof may be offset against any rent thereafter due the owner.

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

          ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the  same  hereby  is,
          denied; that the tenant's petition be and  the  same  hereby  is,
          granted; that the Administrator's order under Docket No.  61421-G
          be,  and  the  same   hereby   is,   affirmed;   and   that   the
          Administrator's order under Docket No.  L-001796-R,  be  and  the
          same hereby is, revoked.


                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting Deputy Commissioner


          BF-410246-RO; CC 410366-RT


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