AR Docket Nos. DJ 410205-RT; DJ 410405-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK   11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NOS.: DJ 410205-RT
                                                               DJ 410405-RO

             MARLENE COLGATE (Tenant),            DRO DOCKET NOS.: 
                    and                           CL-410038-RP; CL-410039-RP;
             BROADWALL MANAGEMENT (Owner),        AL 410231-RT; ARL 6273-L;
                                                  L-3111093-R; CDR 26112;  
                                                  T/A 12438; CTA 0539;
                                                  TC 53681-G

                              FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On October 24, 1989 the above-named petitioners  filed  Petitions
          for Administrative Review against an order  issued  on  September
          19, 1989 by the Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall  Street,
          Jamaica, New York  concerning  housing  accommodations  known  as
          Apartment 2A at 220 East 95th Street, New York, New York  wherein
          the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had  overcharged
          the tenant.  The tenant's petition was assign d  Docket  No.  DJ-
          410205-RT, and the owner's petition was assigned Dock t  No.  DJ-
          410405-RO.  As they involve common grounds of law  or  fact,  the
          two petitions are herein merged and  decided  in  one  order  and

          The Commissioner notes that two of the  proceedings  involved  in
          this case were  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 issue in this appeal  is  whether  the  Rent  Administrator's
          order was warranted.

          The applicable sections of the Law are Section 26-516 of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law, Section 2526.1(a) of  the  Rent  Stabilization
          Code, and  Sections  2(f)(8)  and  2(g)(1)  of  the  former  Rent
          Stabilization Code.

          AR Docket Nos. DJ 410205-RT; DJ 410405-RO

          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 originally commenced by the filing in  March,
          1981 of a rent overcharge complaint (Docket No. 53681-G)  by  the
          tenant, in which she stated that she had commenced  occupancy  on
          July 1, 1979 at a rent of $517.00 per month, and that  the  prior
          tenant had been paying a rent of $350.00 per month.

          The owner (Pineco Developers, c/o  Terri  Management  Corp.)  was
          sent a copy of the complaint and requested  to  submit  a  rental
          history from the base date to prove the lawfulness of  the  rents
          charged.  In answer, Terri Management stated that  it  had  never
          been connected with the subject premises, that the building was a 
          J-51 renovation completed in 1975, that rents  were  set  by  the
          U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development  (H.U.D.),  that
          the first rents were in some cases higher than the rents  charged
          the tenants, that leases  were  not  given  out  while  the  rent
          control office was checking out the first rents during  the  time
          that the owner was obtaining a late registration  with  the  Rent
          Stabilization Association, and  that  the  owner's  attorney  was
          keeping the tenants apprized of the  situation.   It  enclosed  a
          handwritten listing of rents for  September  1,  1975  giving  an
          amount of $440.00 for the subject  apartment.   The  owner  later
          submitted a rental schedule submitted to H.U.D. on September  15,
          1975 by Richard Pine,  a  partner  in  the  owner,  which  listed
          proposed rents of $365.00 for units with 2 bedrooms,  kitchenette
          and living room, and of $435.00, $445.00 and  $455.00  for  units
          with 3 bedrooms, kitchenette and living room, for a  total  gross
          monthly rent of $9,005.00 for the  building.   Various  documents
          submitted by the tenant indicate that the apartment was  formerly
          rent-controlled, with a 1973 Maximum Base Rent of  $72.31  for  a
          tenant C. McCloud; that a building vacate order was issued by New 
          York City on March  28,  1972;  that  the  subject  building  was
          rehabilitated with H.U.D. Section 221 (d)(4) and  New  York  City
          Administrative Code Section J51-2.5 benefits; that the renovation 
          was completed in 1975 (according to the former  managing  agent);
          that the owner Jack Pine registered the  subject  apartment  with
          the Office of Rent Control on  January  15,  1976,  requesting  a
          maximum rent of $440.00 and listing a tenant Mel Waithe as paying 
          that rent beginning September 1,  1975;  and  that  the  (former)
          managing agent applied  to  the  Rent  Stabilization  Association
          (R.S.A.) on April  2,  1981  for  late  enrollment.   (DHCR  rent
          records contain  a  rent  control  registration  card  showing  a
          registration with the  R.S.A.  effective  July  10,  1981.)   The
          tenant  subsequently  (in  this  appeal   proceeding)   submitted
          evidence that there was at least one other  tenancy  between  Mr.
          Waithe's tenancy and her tenancy, at a rent of $350.00.

          On July 29, 1986 and September 16, 1986 Final Notices of  Pending
          Default were sent to Pineco Developers (150 Joralemon Street) and 


          AR Docket Nos. DJ 410205-RT; DJ 410405-RO

          Pineco Developers c/o Fred Halla (44 Schermerhorn  Street).   The
          Notices set forth the procedure that would be  used  to  set  the
          lawful stabilization rent  if  a  full  rental  history  was  not
          submitted, and stated that treble damages  would  be  imposed  on
          willful overcharges occurring on and after  April  1,  1984.   On
          July 13, 1988 Broadwall Investments (370 7th Avenue, a/k/a 7 Penn 
          Plaza) was sent a copy of the  tenant's  complaint.   The  answer
          form included a notice about treble damages.

          No separate order was issued in Docket No. TC 53681-G.   Instead,
          it was consolidated in Docket Nos. CL-410038-RP and CL-410039-RP. 
          (This was a new proceeding resulting  from  remands  directed  by
          orders in Docket Nos. ART 06273-L and AL  410231-RT.)   An  order
          deciding the consolidated proceeding was issued on September  19,
          1989.  The  owner's  and  tenant's  appeals  of  that  order  are
          considered herein.

          The proceeding in Docket No. L-3111093-R  was  commenced  by  the
          tenant filing a complaint of overcharge in March, 1984.  Although 
          the owner submitted only the tenant's lease from  July  1,  1979,
          the Administrator issued an order on November 10, 1986 using that 
          as the base date and finding no overcharge.  The tenant's  appeal
          of this determination was assigned Docket No. AL  410231-RT.   On
          November 29, 1988 an order was issued  remanding  the  proceeding
          for consolidation with other overcharge proceedings.

          Docket  No.  T/A  12438  was  a  Fair  Market   Rent   Adjustment
          Application ("fair market rent appeal") filed by the tenant.   On
          October 23, 1985 an order (CTA #0539) was issued  dismissing  the
          application on the grounds that the  building  had  undergone  an
          H.U.D. renovation and that therefore the tenant's  rent  was  not
          subject to a fair market rent appeal.   The  tenant's  appeal  of
          this order was assigned Docket No. ART 06273-L.  On November  29,
          1988  an  order  was  issued   remanding   the   proceeding   for
          consolidation with other proceedings.

          In the new proceeding (Docket No .  CL-410038-RP  and  CL-410039-
          RP), Broadwall Management (370 7th Avenue, a/k/a  7  Penn  Plaza)
          was requested on August 9, 1989 to  submit  rental  documents  to
          substantiate the actual rent charged and paid from  September  1,
          1975 to June 30, 1979.  With this request was  included  a  Final
          Notice of Pending Default, which informed Broadwall Management of 
          the possibility of treble damages.

          On September 19, 1989 an order was issued establishing a  default
          rent in the tenant's initial lease, imposing  treble  damages  on
          overcharges occurring on and after April 1, 1984, and  finding  a
          total overcharge of $22,111.11 as of  September  30,  1989.   The
          Administrator stated that the subject  building  was  subject  to
          the Rent Stabilization Code as  of  September,  1975  because  of
          Section 2 (f)(8) of the former Code, by virtue of having been 

          AR Docket Nos. DJ 410205-RT; DJ 410405-RO

          renovated through a loan financed by H.U.D. pursuant  to  a  J-51
          tax abatement; and that the owner  had  waived  its  right  to  a
          higher base rent by failing to show that it had charged the  full
          rents to which it was entitled.  The Administrator also  rejected
          the tenant's contention that the apartment should be returned  to
          a rent control status.

          In her petition (Docket No. DJ 410205-RT) against the order,  the
          tenant contends in substance that  the  order  did  not  indicate
          whether 1.) the DHCR had  reviewed  the  H.U.D.  regulations  and
          rental  restrictions  and  had  judged  them  not  to  have  been
          exceeded, or 2.) the  DHCR  does  not  regard  itself  as  having
          jurisdiction to enforce  those  regulations.   The  tenant  later
          submitted several documents  from  the  former  managing  company
          showing the prior tenant Nelson as  having  a  rent  of  $350.00,
          including a rent roll for FHA Project No. 012-35103-PM-EC  as  of
          November  31,  1978  showing  a   "rent/mo."   of   $350.00   for
          Nelson/Garfinkel in a lease expiring September, 1979, as well  as
          a "Max. Reg." of $440.00 per month.  The tenant also enclosed  an
          affidavit from a man who stated that he rented the  apartment  to
          the prior tenants for $350.00 per  month,  and  that  indeed  the
          other 3-bedroom apartments in the building were offered at a rent 
          of $350.00 from 1976 to 1978 "in order to induce tenants to  move
          into the building."  The tenant contends that the base  rent  for
          her initial lease should be based  on  $350.00  rather  than  the
          $441.88 rent established by use of the default formula. 

          While the tenant was not able to obtain full financial records of 
          the project from H.U.D., she did obtain a copy of a July 24, 1981 
          letter from H.U.D. to the former managing agent  regarding  among
          other things a  rent  increase  checklist,  management  plan  and
          monthly accounting reports.

          Despite  twenty  requests  for  extensions  of  time  to  answer,
          submitted by its attorney from February 28, 1990 to September  6,
          1991, no reply has been received from the owner to date regarding 
          the tenant's petition.

          In its petition (Docket No. DJ 410405-RO) against the order,  the
          owner contends in substance  that  it  does  not,  based  on  the
          Appellate Division, 2nd Department opinion in  J.R.D.  Management
          Corp. v. Eimicke, have to furnish rent records prior to April  1,
          1980, and that the DHCR did  not  have  authority  to  promulgate
          Section 2526.1 (a)(4) of the current Rent Stabilization Code.

          In answer, the tenant  asserts  in  substance  that  Lavanant  v.
          N.Y.S. DHCR, and the legislative history of the  Omnibus  Housing
          Act (Laws of 1983, Chapter 403), provide for  the  processing  of
          the tenant's overcharge complaint, which  was  made  three  years
          prior to April 1, 1984, under the former Code;  that  the  tenant
          has already provided the prior tenant's rental records in  Docket


          AR Docket Nos. DJ 410205-RT; DJ 410405-RO

          No. DJ 410205-RT; that interest should be imposed prior to  April
          1, 1984 and treble damages after that date based on a prior  rent
          of $350.00; that Administrative Code Section  26-516  (a)(4)  and
          CPLR Section 5001.4 allow the imposition  of  interest  prior  to
          April 1, 1984; and that the DHCR  has  ignored  the  proposition,
          decided in a New Jersey appellate case, that rents  collected  in
          excess of H.U.D.-established maximum rent schedules for  projects
          with mortgages insured under U.S. Code Title 12, Section 1701  et
          seq. are recoverable by tenants.   

          In response, the owner contends in substance  that  the  DHCR  is
          precluded from assessing treble damages since  neither  Broadwall
          Management nor the  owners  have  intentionally  overcharged  the
          tenant; that the owners or managing agent were not put on  notice
          of the treble damage penalty under  all  of  the  related  docket
          numbers; that the DHCR may  not  process  the  matter  under  the
          former Rent Stabilization Code and  then  impose  treble  damages
          under the current Code in order to enrich the  tenant;  that  the
          current managing agent first  received  notice  of  the  tenant's
          complaint more than four years after the effective  date  of  the
          Omnibus Housing Act; that  Lavanant  v.  State  D.H.C.R.  is  not
          binding precedent as the Court's statements regarding an  owner's
          obligation to produce records back to 1974 are nothing more  than
          dicta,  since  they  were  unnecessary  to  support  the  Court's
          affirmance and since the issue was  not  even  raised  until  the
          appellant submitted its reply brief; and that neither the  former
          nor current Codes provide  for  the  imposition  of  interest  on
          overcharges occurring prior to April 1, 1984.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion  that  the  tenant's  petition
          should be granted in part, and that the owner's  petition  should
          be denied.

          Section 2 (f)(8) of the former Rent Stabilization  Code  included
          in  its  definition  of  dwelling  units  covered  by  the   Rent
          Stabilization Code those dwelling units which:

               "are subject to regulation solely as a condition of 
               receiving or continuing to receive benefits pursuant to 
               Section J51-2.5 of the Administrative Code of the City 
               of New York, as amended by Local Law 60 of 1975, so 
               long as such benefits are being received, or because 
               rehabilitated with a loan under Article 14 or 15 of the 
               Private Housing Finance Law, including a structure 
               which contains less than 6 dwelling units, or which is 
               not a class A multiple dwelling..."

          Section J51-2.5 of the Administrative Code of the City of New 
          York prior to amendment by Local Law 60 of 1975, which applied 
          to applications filed on or after January 1, 1976, provided in 

          AR Docket Nos. DJ 410205-RT; DJ 410405-RO

          pertinent part that its benefits would not apply to dwellings not 
          subject to the Rent Control Law or the City Rent and 
          Rehabilitation Law or the Private Housing Finance Law.

          Section J51-2.5 of the Administrative Code as amended by Local 
          Law 60 provided in pertinent part that J-51 benefits would apply, 
          where the application was filed on or after January 1, 1976, only 
          to buildings or structures converted to a class A multiple 
          dwelling or substantially rehabilitated where the rents 
          subsequent to the conversion or substantial rehabilitation did 
          not exceed the amount fixed by the city rent agency pursuant to 
          the Rent Control Law, or to the Rent Stabilization Law so long as 
          the initial legal regulated rent for the dwelling units were the 
          rents charged and paid by the initial tenant.  Sections 11-243 
          (d)(2) and 11-243 (t) of the current Administrative Code continue 
          that requirement, requiring registration with the DHCR and 
          providing that the apartment rents are subject to regulation so 
          long as tax benefits are being received.  Section 2 (g)(1) of the 
          former Rent Stabilization Code excludes dwelling units from rent 
          stabilization so long as they are subject to rent-control.  In 
          the present case a former managing agent has stated that 
          renovation of the subject building was completed in 1975, and an 
          inquiry to the N.Y.C. Department of Finance has revealed that it 
          began receiving J-51 benefits on July 1, 1976, and continues to 
          receive them.  Because it is unclear whether J-51 benefits were 
          applied for before or after January 1, 1976, it is uncertain 
          whether Local Law 60 affected the status of the first tenant 
          after renovation, and thus whether he was rent-stabilized or 
          rent-controlled.  However, even if such first tenant were rent- 
          controlled, his subsequent vacancy decontrolled the apartment 
          pursuant to Chapter 371 of the Laws of 1971.  The subject 
          apartment, in a building registered as having 22 apartments, is 
          therefore subject to rent stabilization.  Evidence furnished by 
          the tenant shows that hers is not the first tenancy after that 
          vacancy, so there is no evidence that she would have a right to 
          make a fair market rent appeal even if that initial tenant had 
          been rent-controlled.  In any event her fair market rent appeal 
          would have now been dismissed since the $350.00 rent of the prior 
          tenant would not, if he were the initial stabilized tenant, 
          represent an unlawful increase over a previous controlled rent of 

          Section 42A of the former Rent Stabilization Code requires that 
          an owner retain complete records for each stabilized apartment in 
          effect from June 30, 1974 (or the date the apartment became 
          subject to rent stabilization, if later) to date and to produce 
          such records to the DHCR upon demand.

          Section 26-516 of Rent Stabilization Law, effective April 1, 
          1984, limited an owner's obligation to provide rent records by 
          providing that an owner may not be required to maintain or 

          AR Docket Nos. DJ 410205-RT; DJ 410405-RO

          produce rent records for more than 4 years prior to the most 
          recent registration and, concomitantly, established a 4 year 
          limitation on the calculation of rent overcharges.

          It has been the DHCR's policy that overcharge complaints filed 
          prior to April 1, 1984 are to be processed pursuant to the law or 
          Code in effect on March 31, 1984.  [See Section 2526.1(a)(4) of 
          the current Rent Stabilization Code.]  The DHCR has therefore 
          applied Section 42A of the former Code to overcharge complaints 
          filed prior to April 1, 1984, requiring complete rent records in 
          these cases.  In following this policy, the DHCR has sought to be 
          consistent with the legislative intent of the Omnibus Housing Act 
          (Chapter 403, Laws of 1983), as implemented by the New York City 
          Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB), the predecessor agency to 
          the DHCR, to determine rent overcharge complaints filed with the 
          CAB prior to April 1, 1984 by applying the law in effect at the 
          time such complaints were filed so as not to deprive such tenants 
          of their right to have the lawful stabilized rent determined from 
          the June 30, 1974 base date and so as not to deprive tenants 
          whose overcharge claims accrued more than 4 years prior to April 
          1, 1984 of their right to recover such overcharges.  In such 
          cases, if the owner failed to produce the required rent records, 
          the lawful stabilized rent would be determined pursuant to the 
          default procedure approved by the Court of Appeals in 61 Jane 
          Street Associates v. CAB, 65 N.Y.2d 898, 493 N.Y.S.2d 455 (1985), 
          in cases involving rent overcharge complaints filed prior to 
          April 1, 1984.

          However, it has recently been held in the case of J.R.D. Mgt. v. 
          Eimicke, 148 A.D.2d 610, 539 N.Y.S.2d 667 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 
          1989), motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the 
          Court of Appeals denied (App. Div. 2d Dep't, N.Y.L.J., June 28, 
          1989, p.25, col. 1), motion for leave to appeal to the Court of 
          Appeals denied (Court of Appeals, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 24, 1989, p. 24, 
          col. 4), motion for leave to reargue denied (Court of Appeals, 
          N.Y.L.J., Feb 15, 1990, p. 25, col. 1), that the law in effect at 
          the time of the determination of the administrative complaint 
          rather than the law in effect at the time of the filing of the 
          complaint must be applied and that the DHCR could not require an 
          owner to produce more than 4 years of rent records.

          Since the issuance of the decision in JRD, the Appellate 
          Division, First Department, in the case of Lavanant v. DHCR, 148 
          A.D. 2d 185, 544 N.Y.S.2d 331 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1989), has 
          issued a decision in direct conflict with the holding in JRD.  
          The Lavanant court expressly rejected the JRD ruling, finding 
          that the DHCR may properly require an owner to submit complete 
          rent records, rather than records for just four years, and that 
          such requirement is both rational and supported by the law and 
          legislative history of the Omnibus Housing Act.  Even if, as the 
          owner contends, the statements of the Appellate Division in 

          AR Docket Nos. DJ 410205-RT; DJ 410405-RO

          Lavanant are dicta rather than binding precedent, the DHCR has 
          found the Court's reasoning persuasive and has chosen to follow 
          it in overcharge cases involving apartments in the First 
          Department.  Because the former and current owners were given 
          several opportunities to submit rental histories, but failed to 
          do so, it was proper for the Administrator to use the default 
          procedures upheld in 61 Jane Street Associates v. C.A.B. to set 
          the tenant's initial rent at $441.88.

          However, the tenant has managed to obtain monthly reports and 
          letters from the former managing agent, and an affidavit from the 
          former rental agent.  While these are being submitted for the 
          first time on appeal the tenant, unlike the owner, had no 
          obligation to retain and furnish such rental history of former 
          tenants.  The tenant was not requested to provide them and indeed 
          would not be expected to be able to provide them.  The 
          Commissioner considers this an acceptable excuse for the late 
          submission, particularly since the tenant's submission of the 
          documents allows her lawful rent to be calculated on the basis of 
          the actual history of rents charged and paid, rather than being 
          based on a default formula because of the failure of the owner to 
          fulfill its obligation to produce rental records.  The acceptance 
          of these documents on appeal, resulting in the calculation of a 
          larger overcharge, prevents the owner from benefiting from the 
          withholding of documents which it should have produced; and which 
          clearly were available since the tenant managed to obtain them.  
          While the first tenant after rehabilitation (who, as mentioned 
          earlier, may have been either rent-stabilized or rent-controlled, 
          depending on when the application for J-51 benefits was filed) 
          may have had a rent of $440.00, the charging of $350.00 to the 
          next tenant in 1977 constituted a waiver of the owner's right to 
          base subsequent vacancy rents on any amount higher than that.  
          Basing the complainant's vacancy rent on the $350.00 rent of that 
          tenant, the Commissioner has calculated the lawful stabilization 
          rents and the amount of overcharge.  They are set forth on an 
          amended rent calculation chart attached hereto and made a part 

          Regarding the owner's contention that the DHCR may not process 
          the matter under the former Code and then use the current Code to 
          impose treble damages, the Commissioner notes that Section 2526.1 
          (a)(1)(4) of the current Code provides for precisely those 
          actions.  Regarding the contention that neither the petitioner 
          nor the owners overcharged the tenant, and that they were not put 
          on notice of the treble damage penalty under all of the related 
          docket numbers:  It was appropriate for the Administrator to 
          impose treble damages where the owner did not retain (or at least 
          did not submit) a rental history sufficient to show its 
          entitlement to the rents charged the tenant.  Now that the tenant 
          has furnished documents to complete the rental history, a 
          presumption of willful overcharge arises because the tenant was 

          AR Docket Nos. DJ 410205-RT; DJ 410405-RO

          charged $517.00 while the previous tenant was last being charged 
          $350.00.  Pineco Developers has owned the subject building since 
          at least 1975, with several different managing agents.  Various 
          Final Notices of Pending Default and answer forms giving notice 
          of possible treble damages were sent to those agents.  The 
          petitioner was itself twice notified, via a July 13, 1988 answer 
          form to Broadwall Investments at 370 7th Avenue and an August 9, 
          1989 Final Notice to Broadwall Management at the same address 
          (being the address listed on the apartment registrations since 
          1988), in the remanded proceeding (Nos. CL-410038-RP and CL- 
          410039-RP) which consolidated the previous dockets and which the 
          petitioner has appealed.  This is more than enough notice.

          The tenant has cited Blodgette v. Melohn, 477 N.Y.S.2d 587 (N.Y. 
          City Civ. Ct. 1984) in support of her contention that interest 
          should be imposed on overcharges occurring prior to April 1, 
          1984.  While the Court in that case did award interest from 
          February 1, 1982 by virtue of Civil Practice Law and Rules 
          Section 5001, neither the former not the current Rent 
          Stabilization Code authorize the DHCR to do so.  Section 26-516 
          (a)(4) of the Rent Stabilization Law, cited by the tenant, is 
          meant to allow the imposition of interest on overcharges 
          occurring on and after April 1, 1984 when treble damages have not 
          been imposed.  This determination is without prejudice to any 
          rights the tenant may have to proceed in a court of competent 
          jurisdiction for interest on overcharges occurring prior to April 
          1, 1984.

          Regarding the issue of H.U.D. rental restrictions:  The DHCR does 
          not have jurisdiction over the gross potential rental income for 
          the subject building although it does, since H.U.D. has not been 
          shown to have pre-empted DHCR jurisdiction to do so at this 
          building, regulate the rents of individual apartments.  The 
          proposed rent levels of $435.00, $445.00 and $455.00 for 3- 
          bedroom apartments were simply allocations that the owner 
          proposed as a way to reach the total building rental ceiling; 
          such amounts were not ceilings for any particular apartment.  
          While the gross potential rental income for the building as shown 
          by the registrations is in excess of the amount shown on the 
          rental schedule submitted to H.U.D. by the owner on September 15, 
          1974, and while there is no evidence that the owner applied to 
          H.U.D. for increases in the gross potential income [although the 
          fact that the owner was apparently making monthly financial 
          reports to H.U.D. would tend to imply that H.U.D. was aware of, 
          and authorized, increases], the tenant may wish to pursue any 
          remedies she may have through H.U.D. or in a court of competent 
          The owner is cautioned to adjust the rent, in leases after those 
          considered in this order, to amounts no greater than that 
          determined by this order plus any lawful increases, and to 

          AR Docket Nos. DJ 410205-RT; DJ 410405-RO

          register any adjusted rents with this order being given as the 
          reason for the adjustment.  Because of the possibility that the 
          tenant herein may have vacated by the time that this 
          determination is issued, a copy of this determination is being 
          mailed to the tenant-in-occupancy.

          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 tenant in the same manner as a judgment or not in excess 
          of twenty percent thereof per month may be offset against any 
          rent thereafter due the owner.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and 
          Code, it is

          ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          granted in part; that the owner's petition be, and the same 
          hereby is, denied; and that the Rent Administrator's order be, 
          and the same hereby is, modified in accordance with this Order 
          and Opinion.  The lawful stabilization rents and the amount of 
          overcharge are established on the attached chart, which is fully 
          made a part of this order.  The total overcharge, including 
          excess security of $142.38, is $38,685.36 as of September 30, 


                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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