BG 410228 RT
                                  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
          APPEAL OF                           ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                              DOCKET NO.:  BG 410228-RT
                     HELEN SWEENEY,
                                              DRO DOCKET NOS.:  TC 82881-G
                                                                CDR 30482
                                             OWNER:  PAN AM EQUITIES
                                 PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X


            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                   IN PART
                                    UPON 
                         RECONSIDERATION AFTER REOPENING,
                                    AND
                           MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER


          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
          provision  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.

          On June 3, 1987 the  District  Rent  Administrator,  10  Columbus
          Circle, New  York,  New  York  issued  an  order  dismissing  the
          tenant's overcharge complaint concerning  housing  accommodations
          known as Apartment 3C at 225 East 82nd Street, New York, New York 
          [incorrectly referred to as East 83rd Street in the order] on the 
          basis of an Assurance of Discontinuance  negotiated  between  the
          owner and the Attorney General's  Office.   The  tenant  filed  a
          Petition for Administrator Review on July 20, 1987.  On  November
          22, 1988 it was dismissed as untimely.

          The owner subsequently submitted a  letter  to  the  Division  of
          Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)  regarding  numerous  cases,
          including the  complainant's,  stating  that  in  at  lease  some
          instances  falsified  rental  histories  were  submitted  to  the
          Attorney General, and that it was willing to have the lawful rent 
          of the subject apartments determined by the DHCR on the basis  of
          available  rental  documentation  rather  than  resting  on   the
          argument (accepted by the Administrator in dismissing some of the 
          complaints) that the DHCR had  no  jurisdiction  because  of  the
          Assurance.  Because the tenant's complaint was dismissed based on 






          BG 410228 RT
          information submitted to the Attorney General which may have been 
          false  (although  it  was  not  known  to  have  been  so),   the
          Commissioner issued  an  order  on  May  6,  1991  reopening  the
          administrative review proceeding and revoking  the  November  22,
          1988 dismissal of the tenant's petition.  With the  May  6,  1991
          reopening order the tenant was sent a copy of  the  evidence  the
          owner had submitted to substantiate the June 30, 1974  base  date
          rent of $239.00.  The tenant was  requested  to  submit  evidence
          that this was not the actual rent charged  that  tenant,  but  no
          reply has been received from her to date, so $239.00 is  accepted
          as  the  base  date  rent.   The  tenant's  allegations  of  rent
          overcharge are herein decided on the merits.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion  that  the  tenant's  petition
          should be granted  in  part,  to  the  extent  of  modifying  the
          Administrator's order to a termination on the merits rather  than
          a dismissal based on a lack of jurisdiction.

          The tenant contended that the prior  (base  date)  tenant's  rent
          included furniture, whereas her rent of $235.00 did not.  Even if 
          the base date rent of $239.00 is reduced by  10%  to  $217.27  to
          reflect the appropriate rent for an  unfurnished  apartment,  the
          complainant's initial rent  of  $235.00  in  a  lease  commencing
          November 1, 1974 is lawful, since the owner  could  have  charged
          up to $240.08 (10 1/2% increase for a 2-year vacancy lease).  The 
          lawful stabilization  rents  in  subsequent  leases  are  $250.00
          ($235.00 + 8%) per month from November 1,  1976  to  October  31,
          1978; $271.25 ($250.00 + 8 1/2%) per month from November 1,  1978
          to October 31, 1981; $314.65  ($271.25  +  16%)  per  month  from
          November 1, 1981 to October 31, 1984; and $342.97 ($314.65 +  9%)
          per month from November 1, 1984 to October 31, 1986.  Since these 
          are the actual rents charged (including the increase from $268.75 
          to $271.25 during the lease term commencing November 1, 1978  due
          to the issuance of Guideline 10a), there has been  no  overcharge
          shown as of the lease commencing November  1,  1984.   While  the
          tenant's petition is being granted to the extent  of  considering
          the merits of her overcharge complaint rather than dismissing  it
          for lack of jurisdiction due to the Assurance of  Discontinuance,
          the overcharge proceeding is being  terminated  since  there  was
          actually no overcharge.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  granted
          in part; and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and 
          the same hereby is, modified in accordance with  this  Order  and
          Opinion.  There has been no overcharge  shown  as  of  the  lease
          commencing November 1, 1984.




          ISSUED:

                                                  ------------------------
                                                  ELLIOT SANDER
                                                  Deputy Commissioner
           






          BG 410228 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