BG 210277-RO

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

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. BG 210277-RO

           Lawrence Grosvenor,            :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
                                             DOCKET NO. TC 060239-G        
                              PETITIONER  : 


      On July 9, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for 
      Administrative Review against an order issued on June 12, 1987, by a 
      Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known as 110 
      St. James Place, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. 7, 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 42A of the former Rent Stabilization Code.

      The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was 

      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 by the filing on February 22, 
      1982 of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant.  The tenant had been 
      paying rent on a monthly basis until the lease commencing on November 
      25, 1981, when the tenant began paying on a weekly basis.

      In response to the tenant's complaint, the owner submitted the complete 
      rental history. 

      In Order Number TC-060239-G issued on June 12, 1987, the Rent 
      Administrator determined overcharges in the amount of $227.39, including 
      excess security of $8.80.

          BG 210277-RO

      In his petition, the owner contends that the Administrator mistakenly 
      calculated the lawful rent by the month, when in fact the tenant has 
      paid on a weekly basis since her occupancy.  The owner uses the formula 
      of 4.3 times the weekly rent equals one month's rent.  The owner also 
      disputes the finding of $8.80 in excess security, since this amount 
      assumes that the tenant paid a month's security when in fact she only 
      paid one week's rent as security.

      The tenant did not answer the petition.

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

      The owner's claim that the Administrator mistakenly found an overcharge 
      because he calculated the rent increase as based on monthly rent 
      payments instead of weekly payments is without merit.  In actuality, the 
      rate at which the rent is paid makes no difference because the total 
      legal monthly rent must not change in any case.  Moreover, the two 
      overcharges found in the leases under guidelines 8 and 10 were for 
      periods when the tenant paid on a monthly basis, and were correctly 
      calculated.  When the tenant paid on a weekly basis, in the lease 
      commencing November 21, 1981, the lawful monthly rent was correctly 
      determined as $162.80 (September 30, 1981 rent of $148.00 + 10% increase 
      for 1 year renewal lease = $162.80).  To use the owner's formula of 
      multiplying the weekly rent ($42.90) by 4.3 instead of 4 only results in 
      a finding that the tenant paid a greater overcharge than the 
      Administrator calculated.  Finally, the owner's claim that the tenant 
      only paid one week's rent as security is rejected because this was never 
      claimed by the owner in his submissions into the record, and cannot be 
      considered for the first time on appeal.

      A copy of this order and opinion is being sent to the current occupant 
      of the subject apartment.

      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 and 
      that the Administrators order be and the same hereby is, affirmed.


                                      JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Acting 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