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.:
RE ME GEC CORPORATION, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER TENANT: BLANCHE McNEILL
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 17, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
August 5, 1987, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza,
Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as
Apartment 34 at 517 West 169th Street, New York, New York,
wherein the Administrator established the stabilized rent and
directed the owner to refund $313.44 including interest from
April 1, 1984.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the evidence rele-
vant to the issues raised in the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was originally commenced on May 31, 1985, by the
filing of a complaint of rent overcharge by the tenant.
The owner answered the complaint asserting in substance, that
there had been no overcharge collected.
On the chart attached to and made a part of the order, the
Administrator established the stabilized rent.
In its Petition, the owner contends, in substance, that the
Administrator erred on the rent calculation chart attached to the
order by failing to acknowledge that the rent due under the
tenant's August 1, 1985 through July 31, 1987 renewal lease
should have been calculated using a base rent arrived at by
adding to the September 30, 1984 rent of $195.97, the Major
Capital Improvement (MCI) increase granted under Docket No. OM
4535, $3.38 (1.85% of the June 1, 1983 rent [$183.15]).
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the Petition should be
The Commissioner notes that if the Administrator had calculated
the rent as the owner suggests (and as the owner appears to have
done) the legal rent under the last lease covered by the order
below (the August 1, 1987 to July 31, 1989 lease) would have been
found to have been the rent reserved in that lease, $262.74 and
that the total overcharges that would have been found would have
been less than $45.00, including interest.
The owner's contentions, however, are based on two errors. The
first is that the MCI increase was not, according to the MCI
order, to be calculated over the June 1, 1983 rent (of $183.15)
but over the June 1, 1982 rent (of $166.50). The second, more
crucial error, is that the base rent for calculating the 85/87
renewal lease rent was the rent charged on September 30, 1984,
($195.97) and not that rent increased, retroactively, by the MCI
increase granted in the MCI order. Such a retroactive increase
of the base rent is inappropriate where, as here, the MCI order
contains a schedule for the payment of the retroactive portion
of the MCI increase.
The Commissioner therefore finds that the Administrator properly
calculated the rent for the subject apartment in the chart
annexed to the appealed order.
The Commissioner notes that the Administrator's 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 enforced by the tenant in the following manner, not in
excess of twenty percent thereof per month may be offset against
any rent thereafter due the owner.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same hereby is, denied.