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

          APPEAL  OF                             DOCKET  NO.  EC   710254-RT
                                               D.R.O. ORDER NO.:        
                                              :DH                7-1-0021-R,
                                               EB 7-1-0027-RP/DH 7-1-0021-R
                                               Owner: Flowerview Gardens   
                                                      c/o Phase II Mgmt. 
             JANET JONES,        PETITIONER   :           Corp. 


               On March 14, 1990, the above named petitioner-tenant filed  a
          Petition  for  Administrative  Review  against  orders  issued  on
          January 17, 1990 and March 2, 1990 by the Rent  Administrator,  50
          Clinton   Street,   Hempstead,   New   York   concerning   housing
          accommodations known as  Apartment  Fern  E-1,  91  Tulip  Avenue,
          Floral Park, New York wherein the  Rent  Administrator  determined
          that there had been an overcharge and ordered a refund of $3725.00 
          (January 17, 1990 Order Number  DH  7-1-0021-R).   In  the  second
          order, EB 7-1-0027-RP/DH-7-1-0021-R, issued  March  2,  1990,  the
          Administrator amended the prior  Order  upon  reconsideration  and
          found that  the  tenant  owed  the  owner  $163.14  in  additional
          security, raised the tenant's rent from $530.51  to  $555.77,  and
          ordered the tenant to pay the difference.  This difference in rent 
          was due to the  addition  of  certain  rent  increases  for  Major
          Capital Improvements (MCIs).        

               On March 7, 1990 the tenant requested reconsideration of  the
          March 2, 1990 Order, based in part on the allegation that  certain
          of the MCI increases did not apply to her building and questioning 
          the need to pay additional security on the basis that the  owner's
          evidence was insufficient.  In addition, the tenant noted that the 
          March 2, 1990 Order had used a different base date  than  that  of
          the January 17, 1990 order and implied that the  overcharge  found
          in the January 17, 1990 order was correct.  (The first Order  used
          the September 30, 1983 rent as the base rent whereas the March  2,
          1990 Order used the April 1, 1985 rent as the base rent.)  

               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 commenced this proceeding on  August  3,  1989  by
          filing an overcharge complaint in which the tenant alleged that 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC 710254-RT
          the owner was attempting to collect a security deposit  in  excess
          of one month's rent.

               In answer to the complaint, the owner stated that the  tenant
          actually owed an additional security deposit of $148.54. 

               In Order Number DH 7-1-0021-R, issued January 17,  1990,  the
          Rent Administrator determined that the correct security deposit at 
          that time was $508.45 and directed that either the  owner  or  the
          tenant correct any discrepancy therewith, but made no  finding  as
          to the actual security deposit being held.  However,  the  amended
          order  (EB  7-1-0027-RP/DH-7-1-0021-R)  directed  the  tenant   to
          increase the security deposit by $163.19,  while  eliminating  the
          $3725.00 overcharge completely.   In  eliminating  the  overcharge
          the Administrator noted that the base rent  should  be  that  rent
          stated in the annual registration statement filed four years prior 
          to the  most  recent  registration,  plus  any  subsequent  lawful
          increases and/or adjustments.  Because the complaint was filed  in
          August of 1989, the  April  1,  1989  registration  was  the  most
          recent, so that the April 1, 1985  registered  rent  was  used  to
          determine the legality of the tenant's rents.  Based  thereon,  no
          overcharge was found.    

               In this petition, the tenant refers to both the  January  17,
          1990 and the March 2, 1990 orders and alleges that  the  corrected
          1983 lease renewal attached to her petition shows  that  she  paid
          the then-current rent security and that the current owner may have 
          accepted an incorrect amount of security at the time of  purchase.
          Finally, the petitioner expresses concern that her rent may be  an
          overcharge based on the  January  17,  1990  order,  although  she
          admits that until that time she had never doubted the legality  of
          her rent.   

               The owner did not answer this  petition,  apparently  because
          the answer forms were  sent  to  the  wrong  address.   Since  the
          tenant's petition is herein denied, the owner is not prejudiced by 
          that error. 

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should
          be denied.

               On March 20,1990 the  Administrator  issued  a  third  order,
          bearing the docket number EB-7-1-0027-RP/DH-7-1-0021-R, i.e.,  the
          same docket number as the March 2, 1990  order,  and  bearing  the
          title "Corrected Amended Order and Determination."  In this  order
          the Administrator removed the MCI rent increa e  granted  in  DCA-
          7-1-0001-OM and found that the correct legal rent was the  $530.51
          actually being paid, thereby eliminating the tenant's  obligation,
          stated in the March 2, 1990 order, to pay additional rent.

               The March 20, 1990 order  did  not  deal  directly  with  the
          security  deposit  issue.   However,  the  order  states  that  it
          "supersedes" the March 2, 1990 order.  Thus the tenant's 
          obligation to pay an additional $163.19 in security was eliminated 
          by the March 20, 1990  order.   Therefore,  the  security  deposit

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC 710254-RT
          issue is now moot.    

               [Since the March 20, 1990 order reduced the lawful rent  from
          $555.77 to $530.51, had the order not  explicitly  superseded  the
          March 2, 1990 order the effect of the March 20, 1990  order  would
          have been to reduce the additional security  owed  by  the  tenant
          pursuant to the March 2, 1990 order by $25.26.   The  Commissioner
          notes that in a letter to the tenant  dated  March  13,  1990,  in
          response   to   the   tenant's   March   7,   1990   request   for
          reconsideration, the Administrator stated in part:    

                    "The questions you raised concerning 
                    the transfer of security deposit from
                    one owner to a new owner are valid, 
                    however the transfer of such funds are        
                    not within the jurisdiction of this 
                    office.  The possible misuse of said 
                    funds by either the prior owner or the
                    present owner is a matter for the 
                    Attorney General's Office, of the State
                    of New York."

          Accordingly,  the  Commissioner   hereby   determines   that   the
          Administrator intentionally omitted any reference to  security  in
          the March 20, 1990 order and further  intended  to  eliminate  the
          tenant's  obligation  to  pay  any   additional   security.    The
          Commissioner further notes that neither party has filed a petition 
          against the superseding Corrected Amended Order of March 20,  1990
          (which bore the owner's correct address).]   

               Finally, the  Commissioner  notes  that  the  petitioner  has
          expressed concern about the legality of  her  rent  based  on  the
          Administrator's finding of an overcharge in the January  17,  1990
          order.  As the Administrator correctly found in the March 2,  1990
          order, the computations in the January 17,  1990  order  had  been
          made based on an incorrect base rent.

               Subsection 2506.1(a)(3)(i) states:

                    "Except as to complaints filed
                    pursuant to subparagraph (ii) 
                    of this paragraph, the legal
                    regulated rent for purposes of
                    determining an overcharge shall
                    be deemed to be the rent shown
                    in the annual registration 
                    statement filed four years prior
                    to the most recent registration
                    statement (or, if more recently

                    filed, the initial registration
                    statement), plus in each case
                    any subsequent lawful increases
                    and adjustments."

               Accordingly, the Administrator was correct to use  the  April
          1, 1985 registered rent of $412.02 to determine  the  legal  rent.
          The Commissioner has  reviewed  the  Administrator's  calculations

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC 710254-RT
          (after eliminating the  MCI  increase  under  DCA-7-1-0001-OM  and
          finds that the Administrator correctly found  $530.51  to  be  the
          lawful  October  1,  1989-September  30,  1991   rent   (excluding
          parking).  Therefore, there was no overcharge.  

               THEREFORE,  in   accordance   with   the   Emergency   Tenant
          Protection Act and Regulations, it is

               ORDERED, that this petition  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
          dismissed as untimely insofar as it purports to appeal the January 
          17,1990 order, and denied for the reasons stated above insofar  as
          it appeals the March 2, 1990 order, and the  Rent  Administrator's
          March  20,  1990  order  which  superseded  the  order(s)   herein
          appealed, and which itself  was  not  appealed  by  either  party,
          remains in full force and effect. 


                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC 710254-RT


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