CA410092RO

                                  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. CA410092RO
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO.L3115509R
          EAST VILLAGE 10TH STREET ASSOCIATES    TENANT: STEPHEN PULLAN

                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             
           ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN 
          PART


               On January 14, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on 
          November 7, 1986, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall 
          Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 259 East 10th Street, New York, New York, Apartment No. 2, 
          wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had 
          overcharged the tenant.

               The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions of Section 2526.1 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 originated by the tenant's filing of a rent 
          overcharge complaint in March, 1984.

               In response to the tenant's complaint, the owner East Village 
          10th Street Associates submitted a rental history for the subject 
          apartment.

               In Order Number CDR 26,354, the Rent Administrator determined 
          that the owner East Village 10th Street Associates and the prior 
          owner Howard Buck had overcharged the tenant $8016.92 from December 
          15, 1979 through February 14, 1985.  The Rent Administrator directed 
          East Village 10th Street Associates to refund to the tenant the 
          overcharges collected by it but did not determine exactly how much 
          this amount was and stated that the order was issued without 
          prejudice to the tenant's right to pursue his claim of rent 
          overcharges against the prior owner in a court of competent 
          jurisdiction.

               In this petition, East Village 10th Street Associates alleges 
          in substance that the petition is timely filed because it was never 









          CA410092RO




          sent a copy of the Rent Administrator's order at its current address 
          when the order was issued - 130 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 
          and thus never received said order; that it is attempting to locate 
          additional documentation in support of its petition; that it owned 
          the subject premises only from June 17, 1981 through February 5, 
          1985 and that the Rent Administrator's order must at the very least 
          be corrected to reflect the period of time for which East Village 
          10th Street Associates is responsible for any alleged overcharges.  
          No further documentation was submitted on behalf of the owner 
          herein. 

               In response to the owner's petition, the tenant stated in 
          substance that the petition should not be considered timely because 
          he sent the owner a copy of the Rent Administrator's order when he 
          received it from the DHCR; that the copy of the order mailed by the 
          tenant to the owner was never returned to the tenant; that the 
          appeal filing is just a delaying tactic on the part of the owner; 
          that there was no requirement that the Rent Administrator list the 
          specific periods of ownership of a building; and that by the time 
          the Rent Administrator's order had been issued there was a new owner 
          of the subject premises.

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

               At the outset, the Commissioner finds that the petition must be 
          considered as timely filed.  An examination of the record discloses 
          that the copy of the Rent Administrator's order sent to the owner 
          herein at 50 East 42nd Street was returned to DHCR by the Post 
          Office as undelivered with a notation that the owner's address was 
          130 West 42nd Street.  There is no record that the Rent 
          Administrator's order was ever resent to the correct address of the 
          owner.  Accordingly, it cannot be said that the 35 day period for 
          filing a petition commenced since the order was not properly served 
          and the petition is timely.

               Turning to the merits of the petition, Section 2526.1(f)(1) of 
          the Rent Stabilization Code provides in pertinent part that for 
          overcharges collected prior to April 1, 1984, an owner will be held 
          responsible only for his or her portion of the overcharges in the 
          absence of collusion or any relationship between such owner and any 
          prior owners.

               In the instant case,  an examination of the record including 
          the lease history and information supplied by the owner discloses 
          that the owner acquired the subject premises in June 1981 and sold 
          the subject premises on February 5, 1985.  Accordingly, the owner 
          herein - East Village 10th Street Associates - is responsible for 
          all overcharges from July 1, 1981 (first of month following 
          purchase) until February 14, 1985 (owner presumably received rent 
          for February, 1985) or a total of $7389.54 including treble damages 






          CA410092RO


          on the overcharge occurring on and after April 1, 1984.  The prior 
          owner Howard Buck is responsible for the remaining overcharge of 
          $627.38.  The tenant may pursue his claim of rent overcharge against 
          Howard Buck in a court of competent jurisdiction.

               A copy of this order is being sent to the current owner of the 
          subject premises.  It is noted that the lawful stabilization rent 
          for the subject apartment as of April 15, 1982 is $216.32 as 
          determined by the Rent Administrator.

               The current 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 
          increases.

               The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that 
          the owner East Village 10th Street Associates collected overcharges 
          of $7389.54.  This Order may, upon expiration of the period for 
          seeking review of this Order and Opinion pursuant to Article 
          Seventy-eight of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and 
          enforced as a judgment.  Where the tenant files this Order as a 
          judgment, the County Clerk may add to the overcharge, interest at 
          the rate payable on a judgment pursuant to section 5004 of the Civil 
          Practice Law and Rules from the issuance date of the Rent 
          Administrator's Order to the issuance date of the Commissioner's 
          Order.

               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 in accordance 
          with this order and opinion.

          ISSUED



                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Deputy Commissioner




                     












          CA410092RO



























    

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