Adm. Review Docket Number: BJ 710231 RO
                                 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.: BJ 710231 RO 
                                            :  
             SOLGAR COMPANY INC.,           :  DRO DOCKET NO.: CBF 710039 R 
                                            :
                         PETITIONER-OWNER   :  TENANT: LAWRENCE LIEBERMAN
        ------------------------------------X                           
          
           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

        On October 6,  1987,  the  above-named  petitioner  filed  a  timely
        Petition for  Administrative  Review  against  an  order  issued  on
        September 2, 1987 by the  Rent  Administrator,  50  Clinton  Street,
        Hempstead, New York concerning the housing  accommodation  known  as
        236 Cedarhurst Avenue, Apartment 11-A, Cedarhurst, New York  wherein
        the Administrator determined that the owner was collecting more than 
        the lawful stabilized rent and directed its refund.

        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 in the administrative appeal.

        This proceeding was commenced on June 9, 1987, when the tenant filed 
        a  complaint  of  rent  overcharge,  alleging  that  the  owner  was
        collecting an overcharge based on a granted MCI increase.  The owner 
        had been  granted  a  per  window  increase  for  the  building-wide
        installation of new windows.  Tenant  alleged  that  the  owner  was
        overcharging by exceeding the allowable amount.

        A copy of the complaint was sent to the owner who responded  denying
        the complaint.

        On September 2, 1987, the Administrator issued the order here  under
        review, finding that the owner had collected rent in excess  of  the
        total allowable amount and directed the owner to refund $24.80.

        In the appeal, the owner contends that the underlying order granting 
        the MCI increase has been incorrectly interpreted.  In  the  owner's
        opinion, the order makes no distinction between windows in  tenant's
        apartments and windows in the common areas.  The owner  argues  that
        it is entitled to collect the per window amount for all windows in 
        order to recapture its cost by allocating the amount for the  common
        areas to each apartment.

        The tenant did not  answer  this  petition,  although  afforded  the
        opportunity to do so.


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

        The order granting the MCI increase limited the owner's recovery  to







        Adm. Review Docket Number: BJ 710231 RO
        $2.62 per window i.e., the windows within each  tenant's  apartment.
        The Administrator did not make a separate computation for the common 
        area windows; however, as is customary, the cost  of  these  windows
        has been  accounted  for  in  the  total  computation.   That  order
        contains no language which would permit the owner to  make  its  own
        computation to gain  an  additional  rent  increase.   Although  the
        petitioner  is  dissatisfied  with  the  rent  increase   previously
        granted, it neglected to appeal that order.  In appealing the  order
        here under review, it  may  not  collaterally  seek  to  change  the
        previous order.

        Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator correctly 
        determined that the owner was collecting an overcharge.

        THEREFORE, in accordance with the Emergency  Tenant  Protection  Act
        and the Tenant Protection Regulations, it is

        ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,  denied  and
        the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

        ISSUED:




                                                                      
                                        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