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.CC110240RO
: DRO DOCKET NO.AH110247R
Time Equities Inc., TENANT:William Pumphrey
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 7, 1988 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order issued on February 1,
1988 by a Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New
York, concerning the housing accommodations known as Apartment No.
6E, 104-25 195th Street St. Albans, New York, wherein the Rent
Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged this
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
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 on August 26, 1986. The tenant had assumed
occupancy on June 1, 1979, pursuant to a two year lease at a rent
of $230.00 per month.
In its answer, the current owner submitted the complete rent
history as well as an MCI order, Docket Number QCS000249-OM, issued
on August 1, 1986.
In Order Number AH110247R, the Rent Administrator determined that
the tenant had been overcharged $12.37, including excess security
and interest. The overcharge was found in the two year lease
commencing June 1, 1986, which listed a rent of $320.05; the lawful
stabilized rent was $319.50.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the Rent
Administrator miscalculated the MCI increase by using the rent
charged on April 1, 1984 ($269.10) as the base rent instead of the
rent on September 1, 1984 ($287.94), as directed in the MCI order.
The owner also states that the prior owner improperly failed to
collect the MCI increase.
The tenant's reply states that the Administrator properly used the
1984 registration because the tenant did not receive a copy of the
registration in 1986, or for the two years after.
In response, the current owner states that although the prior owner
had filed 1986 and 1987 registrations with the DHCR, no proof of
mailing to the tenant was found in its files. Therefore, the owner
was sending copies of both registrations to the tenant again.
Enclosed with the answer is a copy of a U.S. Postal Service receipt
for certified mail delivery to the tenant, dated June 16, 1988.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
The Rent Administrator's calculation of the MCI increase was
incorrect because it improperly based the increase on the lawful
rent charged on April 1, 1984 instead of on September 1, 1984,
which was the base rent that was specified in the MCI order.
This results in a permanent MCI increase of $12.58 instead of
$11.76 (MCI increase of 4.37% of September 1, 1984 rent of $287.94=
$12.58), and a lawful stabilized rent of $332.08 ($319.50 + $12.58)
effective September 1, 1986; to which is added the temporary
increase of $17.28 (6% of September 1, 1984 rent of $287.94), for
a collectible rent of $349.36 for the period from September 1, 1986
to September 1, 1987. For the period from September 1, 1987 to
August 31, 1988, the temporary increase is reduced to $1.61 (0.56%
of the September 1, 1984 rent of $287.94), resulting in a
collectible rent of $321.11 for that period. Although the owner
states in the petition that the prior owner failed to collect the
MCI increase, the record indicates that the tenant was charged the
permanent MCI increase and arrears.
It is noted that an overcharge of $0.55 per month remains for the
period from June to August, 1986, for a total of $1.65.
Finally, the tenant's claim that the owner was not entitled to a
rent increase because he did not receive the 1986 or 1987
registration statements will not be considered by the Commissioner
because the tenant did not file a petition for administrative
A copy of this order will be sent to the current occupant of the
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 and, that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, modified in accordance
with this order and opinion.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA