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


          APPEAL OF                               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                  DOCKET NO. DF 110409 RO
               Lane    Management    Corp.,                DISTRICT    RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S    DOCKET
                                                  NO. DD 110084 RP
                                                  TENANT: Leo Kwiatkowski

                                         IN PART                          

          On June 22, 1989, the above-named  owner  filed  a  petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on May  19,  1989  by  a
          District Rent  Administrator  concerning  housing  accommodations
          known as 41-47 56th Street, Apt 2G, Woodside,  New  York  wherein
          the Administrator updated overcharges from  a  previously  issued

          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 in the petition for review.

          This proceeding was commenced on June 20, 1980 under  Docket  No.
          TC045173G upon the filing of complaint or rent overcharge by  the
          tenant with the former New York  City  Conciliation  and  Appeals
          Board (CAB).  The tenant stated that he  had  not  been  shown  a
          lease history of the subject apartment and suspected he was being 

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint with the  CAB  wherein
          it was alleged that the current tenant was the  first  stabilized
          tenant after the previous rent-controlled tenant had vacated  the
          premises, and that no overcharge occurred.

          On April 1, 1984, responsibility for the administration  of  rent
          stabilization in New York City was transferred to  the  New  York
          State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).
          Docket No. DF110409RO         - 2 -

          In the order issued by DHCR on October 23, 1986 the Administrator 
          found that the owner had failed to provide a full rental  history
          for the subject apartment  although  requested  to  do  so.   The
          Administrator employed the  court-authorized  default  method  to

          determine the lawful stabilization rent of $203.37 as of March 1, 
          1980 through February 28, 1981.  The   Administrator  established
          the overcharges to be $766.00 through February 28, 1981 including 
          excess security.

          In  accordance  with  the  Administrator's  order,   the   tenant
          proceeded to offset twenty percent  of  the  overcharges  in  his
          monthly rent payment for five months.

          Subsequently,  the  owner  instituted  a  non-payment   of   rent
          proceeding in the  Civil  Court  of  Queens  County  because  the
          tenant exercised this option of rent offset.

          In the proceeding in Civil Court t e  parties  entered  a  court-
          approved stipulated agreement in which the  lawful  stabilization
          rent was established at $312.44 from March 1, 1988 and the  owner
          agreed to provide  the  tenant  with  a  two-year  renewal  lease
          beginning March 1, 1989 at a rental of $340.55.  In addition, the 
          owner agreed to credit the tenant's account $600.45  constituting
          overcharges from October  1,  1986  through  February  28,  1988.
          Finally, the  court  ordered  the  rent  agency  to  "...issue  a
          determination with respect to the overcharge for  the  period  of
          3-1-81 to 10-31-86.  So that tenant may have entry of judgment."

          On May 1, 1989,  the  DHCR  issued  an  order  under  Docket  No.
          DD110084RP reopening the case and  afforded  the  parties  twenty
          days in which to respond.

          On May 19, 1989, the Administrator issued the  order  here  under
          review  in  which  the  Administrator  updated   the   overcharge
          calculations  through  February  28,  1989.   The   Administrator
          recomputed the overcharges in their entirety and determined  that
          the overcharges were $4,112.04 including interest on  overcharges
          occurring after April 1, 1984.

          In the petition for administrative  review,  the  owner  requests
          that the Administrator's order be reversed.   The  owner  alleges
          that no overcharge occurred and that the  underlying  DHCR  order
          issued on  October  23,  1986  under  Docket  No.  TC045173G  was
          incorrect.  The owner alleges that it was  never  served  with  a
          copy of that order and therefore deprived of its right to file  a
          petition for review of that order. In the alternative, the  owner
          alleges that it was deprived of due process because  it  was  not
          given  the  full  twenty  days  to  respond  to  the   order   of
          reconsideration.  The owner notes that the  order  reopening  the
          proceeding was dated May 1, 1989 and the order here under  review
          was issued on May 19, 1989.  Finally, the owner alleges that,  at
          a minimum, the Administrator's order must be  amended  to  comply
               Docket No. DF110409RO    - 3 -

          with the order of the Civil Court of the  County  of  Queens  and
          limit the overcharges to those overcharges  accumulating  between
          March 1, 1981 and Sept. 30, 1986.  

          The tenant filed an answer to the owner's  petition  for  review.
          The tenant states that he did not receive a complete copy of  the
          owner's petition but responds vigorously to the  portion  of  the
          petition for review he did receive.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is for the  opinion

          that this petition should be granted in part.

          First, the Commissioner finds that the owner may not  now  attack
          the underlying order of October 23, 1986. The owner did not  file
          a petition for review of Docket No. TC045173G either in a  timely
          or an untimely manner.  Further, the owner  sought  a  remedy  in
          Civil Court.  As a result, the  owner,  represented  by  counsel,
          entered  a  court-approved   stipulated   agreement.    In   that
          agreement the owner accepted  the  DHCR  figure  for  the  lawful
          stabilization  rent.   The   owner   also   accepted   the   DHCR
          determination of overcharges through February 28,  1981  and  the
          DHCR figures for  determining  the  overcharges  occurring  after
          October 1, 1986.  By so stipulating, along with  its  failure  to
          file a  petition  for  review,  the  owner  is  now  barred  from
          collaterally attacking the underlying  Administrator's  order  of
          October 23, 1986.

          Second, the owner alleges that its due process rights were denied 
          by virtue of the fact that the  Administrator  issued  the  order
          under review within the twenty days permitted for  the  owner  to
          answer.  While the owner's statements of fact  are  correct,  the
          result of this premature issuance is not  a  due  process  denial
          warranting reversal of the Administrator's order.   In  order  to
          ensure the owner's due process rights, the Commissioner is  fully
          considering the entire petition for review filed  by  the  owner.
          All eighteen points raised by the owner in six pages, as well  as
          the  six  exhibits,  are  being  accepted  and  weighed  by   the
          Commissioner in the determination of this  petition  for  review.
          Accordingly, all of the owner's  due  process  rights  have  been

          Third,  the  owner  correctly  alleges  that  the   Administrator
          exceeded the parameters of the Civil Court's order.  The  court's
          order specifically limited the Administrator's recalculations  of
          the overcharges to those due the tenant for the period  of  March
          1, 1981 through September 30, 1986.  The Administrator  erred  in
          recalculating the overcharges in  their  entirety.   Accordingly,
          the overcharges should have been $2,217.64 and not  $4,112.04  as
          established  by  the  Administrator.   This   amount   has   been
          determined   by   using   the   unchallenged   figures   in   the
          Administrator's order and simply  limiting  the  time  frame  for
          which the overcharges were computed to the specific court-ordered 

          Docket No. DF110409RO         - 4 -

          time period.

          The Commissioner notes  that  a  complete  copy  of  the  owner's
          petition for review was served  upon  the  tenant  who  was  then
          afforded a full opportunity to respond.

          THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  granted
          in part, and that the Administrator's  order  be,  and  the  same
          hereby is modified, in accordance with this  order  and  opinion;
          and it is

          FURTHER ORDERED, that the owner shall immediately refund  to  the

          tenant all amounts not yet refunded representing overcharges  and
          interest; and it is

          FURTHER ORDERED, that if the owner has not  refunded  the  stated
          amounts upon the expiration of the period  for  seeking  judicial
          review of  this  order  pursuant  to  Article  78  of  the  Civil
          Practice Law and Rules the tenant may  recover  such  amounts  by
          deducting them from the rent due the owner.   If  the  owner  has
          refunded no such amounts and the tenant has  not  made  any  such
          deductions from his rent as an offset, then the tenant  may  file
          and enforce a certified copy of this order as a judgment for  the
          amount of $2,217.64 against the owner.


                                             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