BG 410164 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. BG 410164 RO
: DRO DOCKET NO.TC-070829-G
HARLINGTON REALTY CORP. TENANTS: ZUMMO AND INSOLIA
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 30, 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 the housing accommodations known as 250 West
105th Street, New York, New York, Apartment No. 3C, wherein the Rent
Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the
tenant.
The Commissioner notes that this proceeding 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 2526.1 of the current Rent Stabilization
Code.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order
was 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 appeal.
This proceeding was originally commenced in March 1983, by
the filing of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant. In
answer to the complaint, the owner submitted a complete rental
history for the subject apartment. In addition, the owner stated
that it had calculated a rent overcharge of $39.07, had refunded
such overcharge to the tenant and had reduced the tenant's rent as
of November 1, 1986. A copy of a check in which $39.07 had been
refunded to the tenant was submitted in support of this
contention.
BG 410164 RO
In Order Number CDR 30,264, the Rent Administrator determined
that the tenant had been overcharged in the amount of $3553.39 and
directed the owner to refund such overcharge to the tenant.
In this petition, the owner alleges in substance that the
Rent Administrator incorrectly designated a lease commencing
October 20, 1980 as a four year lease at a rental of $656.25
whereas there were two leases during such period - one commencing
October 20, 1980 at a rental of $565.73 (one year vacancy lease)
and one commencing November 1, 1981 at a rental of $656.25 (three
year renewal lease). The owner further contends that when this
error is corrected, it is apparent that no rent overcharge
occurred.
In answer to the owner's petition, the tenant agreed that a
calculation error had been made, but stated in substance that
there was still a rent overcharge.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be granted.
An examination of the records in this case including copies
of rent ledgers submitted by the owner discloses that the owner is
correct in its contention that there was a one year vacancy lease
commencing October 20, 1980 at a rental of $565.73 and a three
year renewal lease commencing November 1, 1981 at a rental of
$656.25. Taking the above factor into account, the lawful
stabilization rents for the subject apartment including
appropriated guideline lease increases are as follows: May 1,
1973 - $336.56; June 1, 1976 - $385.36 based on 14 1/2% guideline
7 increase for two year vacancy lease; June 1, 1978 - $437.38
based on 13 1/2% guideline 9 increase for two year vacancy lease;
June 1, 1979 - $487.68 based on 11 1/2% guideline 10 increase for
two year vacancy lease; October 20, 1980 - $565.71 based on 16%
guideline 12 increase for one year vacancy lease; November 1, 1981
- $656.22 based on 16% guideline 13 increase for three year
renewal lease; December 3, 1982 - $682.47 based on 4% guideline 14
increase for one year vacancy lease (first lease of complaining
tenants); January 1, 1984 - $709.77 based on 4% guideline 15
increase for one year renewal lease; January 1, 1985 - $752.36
based on 6% guideline 16 increase for one year renewal lease;
January 1, 1986 - $782.45 based on 4% guideline 17 increase for
one year renewal lease.
The record further discloses that the complaining tenants
were charged the following rents: $682.50 effective December 3,
1982; $709.80 effective January 1, 1984; $752.39 effective January
1, 1985; $786.24 effective January 1, 1986 and reduced to $782.45
effective November 1, 1986 with a refund to the tenants of $39.07.
Based on the rent reduction and refund, no rent overcharge in fact
occurred.
If the owner has already complied with the Rent
Administrator's order and there are arrears due to the owner as a
BG 410164 RO
result of the instant determination, the tenants are permitted to
pay off the arrears in 24 equal monthly installments. Should the
tenants vacate after the issuance of this order or have already
vacated, said arrears shall be payable immediately.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and
the same hereby is, granted, and, that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, revoked, and it is found
that no rent overcharge occurred.
ISSUED
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|