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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: BK 410277 RO  
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO. CDR 31,505
             MILFORD             MANAGEMENT             CORP.              -
             OWNER                               Tenant:      REESE  ABRIGHT

                                PETITIONER    : 

                                       IN PART

               The  above-named  petitioner  timely  filed  a  Petition  for
          Administrative Review against an order issued on October  6,  1987
          by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New  York
          concerning the housing accommodation known as 20 West 64th Street, 
          Apartment 18N, New York, New York wherein the owner  was  directed
          to roll back the rent and  to  refund  overcharges  of  $6,689.19,
          including  excess  security  and  interest  on   the   overcharges
          collected on or after April 1, 1984.

               The Commissioner notes that  this  proceeding  was  initiated
          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, any reference in this order  and  opinion  to
          Sections of the Rent Stabilization Code is to the Code  in  effect
          on April 30, 1987, and this  proceeding  is  being  determined  in
          accordance therewith.  

               The Commissioner has reviewed all  of  the  evidence  in  the
          record and has carefully considered that  portion  of  the  record
          relevant to the issues raised by the petition for review.  

               This proceeding was commenced when the subject tenant filed a 
          complaint of rent overcharge with the New York  City  Conciliation
          and  Appeals  Board  (CAB),  the  agency  formerly  charged   with
          enforcement of the Rent  Stabilization  Law.   On  April  1,  1984
          responsibility for the administration of rent stabilization in New 
          York City was transferred  to  the  New  York  State  Division  of
          Housing and Community Renewal.  

               On August 19, 1985, the DHCR served a copy of  the  complaint
          upon the owner and demanded that the owner submit  copies  of  all
          leases in effect since the apartment's base date, i.e.,  the  date
          that the apartment became subject to rent stabilization.

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BK 410277 RO

               The owner submitted a set of leases  from  December  1,  1972
          through July 31, 1987.  

               In the order here under review, the Administrator  determined
          that an overcharge had occurred and directed  the  owner  to  roll
          back the rent and to refund $6,689.19 inclusive of excess security 
          and interest on the overcharge occurring  on  or  after  April  1,

               In its appeal, the owner requests  that  the  Administrator's
          order be modified to accurately reflect  the  owner's  actions  in
          rolling back the rent to $792.93 and  issuing  a  rent  credit  of
          $4703.94 on February 1, 1985.  Based upon these actions, the owner 
          contends  that  only  $462.60  in  overcharges   is   outstanding.
          Submitted with the appeal are computer  generated  account  sheets
          showing the amount credited to the tenant's rent account.  

               The tenant raises three  issues  in  answer  to  the  appeal.
          First, the tenant claims that the petition is  dated  January  14,
          1988 and is therefore untimely.  The  tenant's  second  allegation
          concerns the amount of the overcharge.  The tenant  contends  that
          the  Administrator  correctly  calculated  the  overcharges.   The
          tenant agrees that the owner issued  a  credit  but  disputes  its
          value, alleging that since the lawful rent was $775.98,  the  rent
          credit was worth only $4655.88. (6 mos. x  $775.98).   The  tenant
          calculates the refund for overcharges at $2014.84.   Finally,  the
          tenant claims that the rent being collected for the lease term  of
          August 1, 1987 through July 31, 1989 is an overcharge and requests 
          an adjustment  in  the  overcharges  to  be  refunded  to  reflect
          interest and the additional overcharge.  

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should
          be granted in part.

               The Commissioner notes that the petition is incorrectly dated 
          October 6, 1987, the date of the Administrator's order.  Review of 
          DHCR records discloses  that  this  appeal  was  timely  filed  in
          November 1987.  The date to which the tenant alludes is  the  date
          on  which  the  DHCR  sent  Notice  of  Filing  of  Petition   For
          Administrative Review to the tenant. 

               The Commissioner also notes that the owner  did  not  apprise
          the Administrator of its attempt to refund  overcharges  prior  to
          the issuance of the order.

               Accordingly, based on the evidence available at the time, the 
          order was correct as written.  However, since the parties  are  in
          agreement that an  adjustment  was  made  in  February  1985,  the
          Commissioner has recomputed the overcharges still owing to the 

          tenant.  As recalculated below, the overcharges collected through 
          July 31, 1987, the computation date of the Administrator's  order,
          equals $1312.57.  Given that the evidence submitted in the  appeal
          proceeding indicates that the rent credit issued  on  February  1,
          1985 was used  as  rent  for  February  through  July,  1985,  the
          Commissioner has credited the tenant with $4655.88, six times
          the lawful rent, rather than the amount used by the owner in its  

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BK 410277 RO
          calculations.  Since no rent above the rent credit  was  collected
          during this period, the Commissioner  finds  no  overcharges  were
          collected from February 1, 1985 through July 31, 1985.  

          8/1/79 - 7/31/80 = $81.05 x 12 mos. =             $ 972.60
          8/1/80 - 7/31/82 = $73.05 x 24 mos. =              1753.20
          8/1/82 - 3/31/84 = $94.02 x 19 mos. =              1786.38
          4/1/84 - 1/31/85 = $94.02 x 10 mos. + interest =    972.57
          8/1/85 - 7/31/87 = $18.47 x 24 mos. + interest =    483.70
          Total overcharges                                 $5968.45
          Less rent credit 2/1/85 - 7/31/85
                         $775.98 x 6 =                     ($4655.88)
          Net overcharge                                     $1312.57

               The  order  here  under  review  concerned  overcharges  only
          through July 31,  1987.   Consequently,  the  tenant's  allegation
          concerning the August 1, 1987  through  July  31,  1989  lease  is
          beyond the scope of this review.  

               However, the owner is reminded to adjust all future  rent  to
          conform with the lawful stabilization rent, $845.82, for the lease 
          period August 1, 1985 through July 31, 1987, as determined by  the

               Therefore, the Commissioner finds  that  the  Administrator's
          order  should  be  modified  and  directs  the  owner  to   refund
          overcharges of $1312.57.

               This order may, upon the expiration of the  period  in  which
          the owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Artic e  seventy-
          eight of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed  and  enforced
          by the tenant in the same manner as a judgment  or  by  offsetting
          the overcharge found herein against any rent  thereafter  due  the
          owner not in excess of twenty percent thereof per month. 

               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 the Rent Administrator's  order  be,  and  the
          same hereby  is,  modified  in  accordance  with  this  order  and

                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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