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. BH410095RO
: DRO DOCKET NO. L3118042R
SULZBERGER-ROLFE, INC. TENANT: ANGELA FARRELL
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN
On August 21, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on July
17, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York,
New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 114 East
84th Street, New York, New York, Apartment No. 6, 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 Rent Stabilization Code and
Section 2 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 commenced by the tenant's filing of a rent
overcharge complaint in March, 1984. The tenant had been in
occupancy of the subject apartment since July, 1971.
In Order Number CDR 30,901, the Rent Administrator on the basis
of the rental history since July, 1971, determined that a rent
overcharge of $937.84 had occurred from July 1, 1971 through May 31,
1984 when the tenant vacated the subject apartment.
In this petition, the owner alleges in substance that no rent
overcharge occurred because the subject apartment was not subject to
rent stabilization until July 1, 1974; that the rent on July 1, 1974
should be considered the Initial Legal Regulated Rent; and that the
Rent Administrator neglected to include the tenant's renewal lease
effective June 1, 1982.
In response to the owner's petition, the tenant stated in
substance that she should receive the rent overcharge due her.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
granted in part.
Section 2(i)A.(1)(b) of the former Rent Stabilization Code
provides in pertinent part that the Initial Legal Regulated Rent for
a dwelling unit which was subject to the City Rent Law or the Rent
Stabilization Law on June 30, 1971 and was vacated between July 1,
1971 and June 30, 1974 and became subject to the Rent Stabilization
Law on July 1, 1974 shall be the rent charged and paid on June 30,
In the instant case therefore pursuant to Section 2, the rent
charged and paid on June 30, 1974 is the Initial Legal Regulated
Rent, not July 1, 1974 as the owner contends and not July 1, 1971 as
determined by the Rent Administrator. Further, the owner is correct
in its contention that it was not credited with a renewal lease
increase effective June 1, 1982. Taking these factors into account,
the Commissioner has recalculated the lawful stabilization rents and
the amount of the rent overcharge as follows:
Date Lawful Stabilization Rent Amount of Overcharge
6/30/74 $75.00 0
7/1/74 $83.25 (11% over $75.00 pursuant $1.75 per month x 23
to two year renewal lease under months = $40.25.
Guideline 6). Owner charged $85.00.
6/1/76 $91.16 (9 1/2 % over $83.25 0
pursuant to two year renewal lease
under Guideline 7). Owner charged $90.00
and is limited to that amount.
6/1/78 $95.85 (6 1/2% over $90.00 pursuant 0
to one year renewal lease under Guideline
9). Owner charged $95.85.
6/1/79 $102.08 (6 1/2% over $95.85 pursuant to $2.04 per
two year renewal lease under Guideline month x 24
10). Owner charged $104.12. months =
6/1/81 $113.31 (11% over $102.08 pursuant to 0
one year renewal lease under Guideline
12). Owner charged $111.94 and is limited
to that amount.
6/1/82 $123.13 (10% over $111.94 pursuant to 0
one year renewal lease under Guideline 13).
Owner charged $123.13.
6/1/83 $128.06 (4% over $123.13 pursuant to one 0
year renewal lease under Guideline 14).
Owner charged $128.06.
Total overcharge - $89.21
The owner is directed to reflect the findings and
determinations made in this order on all future registration
statements, including those for the current year if not already
filed, citing this order as the basis for the change. Registration
statements already on file, however, should not be amended to
reflect the findings and determinations made in this order. The
owner is further directed to adjust subsequent rents to an amount no
greater than that determined by this order plus any lawful
This 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 filed and enforced in the same manner as
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 in part, and, that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, modified to show a total
rent overcharge of $89.21.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA