OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                                DOCKET NOs. CF420299RO
            Wyndham Realty Co., Owner &       :                CG420058RT
            Lee Buchwald, Tenant                   DRO ORDER NOs.
                                                   L3110578R- TC81141G
                               PETITIONERS     :    BG420046RP

          On June 15, 1988, the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition 
          for Administrative Review against an order issued on June 6, 1988, 
          by a Rent Administrator concerning housing accommodations known as 
          Apartment 14-H, 145 Fourth Avenue, New York, New York, wherein the 
          Rent Administrator determined that there had been an overcharge and 
          ordered a refund.

          On July 11, 1988 the above-named petitioner-tenant  filed  a  PAR
          against the same order.  

          The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was initiated 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 Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the administrative appeal.

          The tenant (Lee E. Buchwald) commenced this proceeding by  filing
          two overcharge complaints with the New York City Conciliation and 
          Appeals Board, the predecessor of the DHCR, on December 28, 1983. 
          The complaints were given two Docket Numbers but were processed as 
          a single proceeding by the administrator.



          In Order Number CDR 13,000 issued on February 6, 1986,  the  Rent
          Administrator determined that the  submitted  lease  history  was
          incomplete and therefore established the lawful regulated rent and 
          computed overcharges therefrom.   Treble  damages  were  imposed,
          bringing the total overcharge, with excess security, to $16,852.10.

          Subsequent to the filing of a Petition for Administrative Review by 
          the owner, in an Order and Opinion issued on July 14, 1987  under
          Docket Number ARL08319L, the Commissioner determined that the owner 
          had substantially complied with the Administrator's request for the 
          lease history and that the finding of default was  revoked.   The
          proceeding was then remanded for further processing.  Additionally, 
          the Administrator was directed to determine the adequacy  of  the
          owner's proof of payment for an air conditioner.  The Opinion also 
          rejected as without merit the owner's claim that the tenant had no 
          standing to file the complaint because, as the son of the  tenant
          who was named on the lease, the complaining tenant  was  only  an
          "occupant" of the apartment.

          The owner thereafter filed another  petition  for  administrative
          review (Docket Number CD420019RO) in which the owner asserted that 
          there were errors in the Commissioner's July 14, 1987 opinion. By 
          order issued on June 2, 1988, it was found that  a  petition  for
          Administrative Review could not be  appealed  by  the  filing  of
          another petition for administrative review and the owner's petition 
          under Docket Number CD420019RO was dismissed.

          In the order issued on remand on June 6, 1988, the  Administrator
          recalculated the lawful rent based on the lease history submitted 
          by the owner, and determined overcharges of $5,344.19, less arrears 
          of $2,228.90, resulting in a net overcharge of $3,115.29 including 
          interest and excess security.  The Administrator also  determined
          that the owner had  sufficiently  proven  the  cost  of  the  air
          conditioner, and approved a rent increase  of  $13.34  per  month
          (1/40th total cost of $533.68). 

          In its petition of that order and a supplement to the petition, the 
          owner contends that the order on  remand  failed  to  mention  or
          consider the owner's PAR against the Commissioner's prior opinion 
          (ARL08319-L), wherein the owner reiterated its objection  to  the
          finding that the tenant had standing to file the complaint;  that
          the decision in the case of J.R.D. Mgt. v. Eimicke  governs  this
          case and mandates that the law in effect at the determination  of
          the complaint must be applied, and that, as a result, the owner was 
          only required to submit records going back to June 6, 1984, which 
          is 4 years prior to the most recent registration  statement;  and
          finally, that the Administrator should have added interest on the 
          arrears owed to the owner.

          In his petition, the tenant requested that the  order  should  be


          modified to award the tenant attorney's  fees,  and  that  treble
          damages should have been  assessed  because  the  owner  had  not
          established that the overcharges were not willful.

          In a letter dated June 24, 1991, the tenant's attorney notified the 
          DHCR that the tenant wished to withdraw his petition. 

          The Commissioner is of the considered opinion  that  the  owner's
          petition should be denied and that the tenant's petition should be 

          Section 2529.1(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code provides that  a
          Petition for Administrative Review may be filed by a party to the 
          proceeding against an order issued by a rent administrator.

          Insofar as the owner filed a petition for  administrative  review
          against  the  Commissioner's  Order  and  Opinion  Docket  Number
          ARL08319L, such petition was inappropriate for obtaining review of 
          the Commissioner's order and was properly dismissed.  The instant 
          order, representing a final order on all issues raised  thoughout
          the proceeding, affords the owner a full opportunity for review of 
          all such issues in an Article 78 proceeding.  

          The Appellate Term case mentioned by the owner, Festa, Klein  and
          Festa v. Leshin et al, is given no legal citation.  Even  if  the
          owner's statement of the facts of that case were accepted, however, 
          it is distinguishable from the instant case.   As  summarized  by
          petitioner, Festa concerned  a  signatory  tenant  who  had  once
          actually lived in the apartment but who vacated, without notice to 
          the owner, leaving his brother as sole occupant.  The owner states 
          that the court found that the owner had not waived objection to the 
          brother's occupancy by accepting the rent from him.  In the instant 
          case, however, the complainant was listed by the owner on the lease 
          as an "occupant" of the apartment, while his father was listed, and 
          did sign, as the tenant.  The owner does  not  dispute  that  the
          complainant's father never took occupancy and that the complainant 
          lived in the apartment from the commencement of the  lease.   The
          fact that the complainant was not issued a lease in his own  name
          until later does not contravene his actual status as tenant  from
          the commencement of the tenancy, which was known to and accepted by 
          the owner, who thereby waived any objection to that relationship. 
          The Commissioner therefore finds that the complainant had standing 
          to file an overcharge complaint.

          The owner's contention that the ruling in the case of J.R.D. Mgt. 


          v. Eimicke must be applied is also incorrect because the  subject
          premises is located in the  First  Department  of  the  Appellate
          Division, whereas the J.R.D. case only has binding effect in  the
          Second Department.

          With regard to the owner's demand for interest on rent arrears owed 
          by the tenant, the Rent Stabilization Code has no  provision  for
          granting such an award to the owner.

          Insofar as the tenant has submitted a letter of withdrawal of his 
          petition,    the     tenant's     petition     is     terminated.
          The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that the 
          owner collected overcharges of $3115.29.  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 or not in excess of 
          twenty percent per month of the overcharge may be offset  against
          any rent thereafter due the owner.  Where the tenant credits  the
          overcharge, the tenant may add to the overcharge,  or  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, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and  the  same  hereby  is
          denied; that the tenant's petition be, and  the  same  hereby  is
          terminated and that the Administrator's order be,  and  the  same
          hereby is affirmed.


                                                     JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                     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