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 :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. BI210252RO
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO.K3103387T
               GARY WASHINGTON                   TENANT: SHIRLEEN FOXWORTH

                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             
             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On September 30, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on 
          September 9, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall 
          Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 1233 St. John's Place, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. 
          1A, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the tenant had 
          been overcharged.

               The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions of Section 2520.11(e) of the Rent Stabilization Code.

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

               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 tenant's filing 
          of a fair market rent appeal in March 1984.  The tenant stated that 
          she first moved to the subject apartment in 1983.

               In answer to the complaint, the owner stated in substance that 
          the subject premises was not subject to the Rent Stabilization Law 
          and Code because it was purchased at a New York City Auction in 1978 
          at which time it was completely renovated using private funds.  In 
          support of this contention, the owner submitted copies of a 1972 
          maximum base rent order for the subject premises showing it to have 
          been constructed in 1916 and to have contained 20 apartments in 
          1972; a copy of a contractor's cost statement dated October 23, 1984 
          stating that the cost of the proposed work on the subject premises 
          would be $100,000 and a copy of the new certificate of occupancy for 
          the subject premises dated March 5, 1985 showing the subject 
          premises to contain 16 housing units on four floors.  Said 
          certificate of occupancy listed the completion date as December 11, 
          1984.  The owner also submitted a copy of a mortgage note dated 
          March 1, 1985 in which the owner promised to pay the contracting 
          company $130,000.










          BI210252RO



               In docket number CDR 31,342, the Rent Administrator dismissed 
          the tenant's fair market rent appeal on the basis that the subject 
          apartment was substantially altered to the extent that it was not in 
          existence in its present form at the time the first stabilized 
          tenant (a prior tenant to the complaining tenant herein) took 
          occupancy so that the owner was entitled to charge a first rent 
          which is not subject to appeal.  However the Rent Administrator then 
          determined that the subject apartment was subject to rent 
          stabilization and that a rent overcharge of $314.00 had occurred 
          during the occupancy of the complaining tenant.

               In this petition, the owner alleges in substance that the 
          subject premises are not subject to rent regulation because of the 
          gut renovation done when the subject premises was vacant.  The owner 
          further states that all interior walls and floors were removed; that 
          new walls, floors, new kitchens, new bathrooms, new plumbing, new 
          wiring and new insulation were installed; and that the cost of the 
          renovations was over $100,000.  In support of his contentions, the 
          owner submitted a copy of the renovation contract marked paid and 
          dated July 8, 1978.

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

               The record indicates that the complaining tenant vacated the 
          subject premises in January, 1984 and that the renovation work was 
          not completed until the end of 1984.  Accordingly, it cannot be 
          considered that the subject premises was substantially rehabilitated 
          at the time that the subject apartment was occupied by the 
          complaining tenant.  Therefore, the Rent Administrator's order 
          finding a rent overcharge was warranted.

               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, denied, and, that the order of the Rent 
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED



                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Deputy Commissioner





                     







          BI210252RO