Adm. Rev. Docket No.: DB710264RO
                                   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. DB710264RO

            MAPLEWOOD MANAGEMENT, INC.        :   
                                                  DISTRICT RENT              
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                  PETITIONER  :   DOCKET NO.            
          ------------------------------------X   N-HEMP-86-S-1012-R

                                                  TENANTS: DARRYL &
                                                   MARY TYLER

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On February 10, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on January 5, 
          1987, by the District Rent Administrator, 50 Clinton Street, 
          Hempstead, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          Apt. B10, at 100 Jerusalem Avenue, Hempstead, New York, wherein the 
          Administrator directed the owner to refund $35.00 it had collected 
          from the tenants as additional rent and which represented the 
          owner's out of pocket expenses in connection with filing a 
          nonpayment proceeding in the District Court.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the petition for review.

          The issue herein is whether an owner can collect its out of pocket 
          expenses in connection with a nonpayment proceeding in the absence 
          of a court order awarding such expenses to said owner.

          In the Petition the owner argues, in substance, that although it 
          might not have properly collected its legal fees from the tenant 
          absent a court order awarding the same had the proceeding in Court 
          gone forward, it should be allowed to collect the expenses it 
          actually incurred in filing that proceeding even though said 
          proceeding was withdrawn after the tenants had paid the rent. The 
          owner argues that its out of pocket expenses are different from 
          legal fees and they should be collectible from the tenants because 
          the tenants' lease provides for payment of any sums incurred by the 
          owner by virtue of the tenants' failure to pay the rent on time and 
          the lease provides for a late payment penalty. 
          The Commissioner is of the opinion that the Petition should be 
          denied.












          Adm. Rev. Docket No.: DB710264RO


          The Commissioner finds that separating court costs from legal fees 
          in this context is a distinction without a difference. Therefore, 
          the Commissioner finds that the Administrator correctly directed 
          the owner to refund the above noted sum. The Commissioner notes 
          that the sum collected was clearly not a late fee and that the 
          owner's ability to enforce a provision in the lease calling for the 
          collection of any sum incurred by the owner by virtue of the 
          tenants' late payment of rent must be construed as subject to the 
          provisions of the ETPA and the Tenant Protection Regulations as 
          interpreted by the Division and the Courts.


          The Commissioner notes that the tenants have vacated the subject 
          premises. The Commissioner further notes that this order may, upon 
          the expiration of the period in which the owner may institute a 
          proceeding pursuant to Article Seventy-eight of the Civil Practice 
          Law and Rules, be filed and enforced by the tenants in the same 
          manner as a judgment. 
              

          THEREFORE, in accordance with all of the applicable laws and 
          regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the order of the Administrator be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.

          ISSUED:

                                                                           
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Acting Deputy Commissioner