EF 710194 RO
                                  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. EF 710194 RO

               Arthur T. Mott,                 DISTRICT RENT   
                                               ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                               DOCKET NO. EB 710254 R
                                    
                                   PETITIONER  Tenant: Vinetta Carter
          -----------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                       IN PART

          On June 1, 1990, the above-named landlord filed  a  petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on May  24,  1990  by  a
          District Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as Apartment 1I, 77 Terrace  Avenue,  Hempstead,  New  York
          wherein the  Administrator  determined  that  an  overcharge  had
          occurred.

          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 petition for review.

          This proceeding was commenced  on  February  23,  1990  upon  the
          filing of a general complaint of rent overcharge by  the  tenant.
          The tenant stated, among other things, that she was never advised 
          of the prior tenant's rent and that she was  never  afforded  the
          option of a two-year vacancy lease.

          On April 2, 1990,  the  landlord  submitted  his  answer  to  the
          complaint.  The landlord alleged that all tenants  are  routinely
          given the option of a two-year lease, and offered to  extend  the
          complainant-tenant's lease to two years with  a  $17.50-per-month
          rent increase.  The landlord submitted with his answer copies  of
          the prior lease and the present lease and  copies  of  bills  and
          cancelled checks for the installation of a refrigerator and stove 
          during a vacancy period.

          In the order here under review the Administrator established  the
          lawful stabilization rent at $425.28  for  the  tenant's  vacancy
          lease beginning January 1, 1990.  Further, it was determined that 
          this amount could not be collected until June 1, 1990, the  first
          rent payment date after the tenant  was  first  supplied  with  a
          rental history.  As a result, the  Administrator  concluded  that
          the overcharge from January 1, 1990  through  June  1,  1990  was
          $1,549.01 including interest.  Finally, the Administrator ordered 
          that the tenant's one-year  vacancy  lease  be  extended  to  two
          years.

          In the petition for administrative review, the landlord  requests
          that the Administrator's order be modified.  First, the  landlord






          EF 710194 RO
          alleges that the  Administrator  did  not  consider  the  vacancy
          improvements, which entitled him to an increase of $13.75 in  the
          calculations establishing the lawful stabilization rent.  Second, 
          it is alleged that a landlord need not advise  a  new  tenant  of
          vacancy improvements and how they affect the  new  vacancy  rent.
          Accordingly, the landlord asserts that the Administrator erred in 
          not considering the vacancy  improvements  when  calculating  the
          overcharges as well.  Finally, the landlord  alleges  that  since
          the Administrator ordered him  to  give  the  tenant  a  two-year
          lease,  it  should  have  been  accompanied  by  the  appropriate
          guideline increase for a two-year instead of a one-year lease.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of  the  opinion
          that the petition should be granted in part.

          The Commissioner finds that the landlord is entitled to  no  rent
          increase, including  those  for  vacancy  improvements,  for  the
          period of January 1, 1990 to May 31, 1990.  Section 2503.8 of the 
          Tenant Protection Regulations states that the landlord must  make
          available to a vacancy tenant in writing the amount of the  prior
          legal rent and that any increase under the offered lease does not 
          exceed the applicable guideline adjustment or an amount otherwise 
          authorized by the Emergency Tenant Protection Act  (such  as  for
          improvements made during a vacancy).  If the landlord fails to do 
          so, "... the lease shall not be effective to increase  the  prior
          legal  regulated  rent..."     Accordingly,   the   Administrator
          correctly excluded the vacancy improvements  when  computing  the
          overcharges, which remain at $1,549.01.

          However, the Administrator  erred  by  failing  to  consider  the
          vacancy improvements made by the  landlord  in  establishing  the
          lawful stabilization rent effective June 1, 1990, the first month 
          following  the  provision  to  the   tenant   of   the   required
          information.   Accordingly,   the   lawful   stabilization   rent
          collectible as of June 1, 1990 should have been  $439.03  instead
          of $425.28 as established by the Administrator.  

          Finally, the  landlord  claims  that  because  the  Administrator
          ordered a two-year instead of a one-year vacancy lease he  should
          have been awarded the appropriate guideline increase for  a  two-
          year lease.  While the landlord has correctly  stated  a  general
          principle, it is inapplicable in this  specific  case.  Guideline
          No. 24, applicable to vacancy leases in Nassau County for  leases
          beginning  January  1,  1990,  provides  for   only   a   vacancy
          adjustment,  with  no  corresponding  guideline  increase.    The
          guideline states  that  "...[o]nce  a  legal  regulated  rent  is
          established for an apartment based upon the vacancy, that becomes 
          the vacancy legal regulated rent until  the  termination  of  the
          lease."  Effectively, this guideline  states  that  there  is  no
          difference in rent between a one-year vacancy lea e  and  a  two-
          year vacancy lease.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Emergency Tenant Protection Act 
          and the Tenant Protection Regulations, 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, amended in accordance with this order and  opinion  so
          as to establish the lawful  stabilization  rent  at  $369.81  per






          EF 710194 RO
          month for the period of January 1, 1990 through May 31, 1990  and
          $439.03 per month for the period of June 1, 1990 through December 
          31, 1991; and it is

          FURTHER ORDERED, that if the landlord has already  complied  with
          the Administrator's order and there are arrears due to the  owner
          as a result of the instant determination, said arrears  shall  be
          payable immediately; and it is

          FURTHER  ORDERED,  that  the  landlord  Arthur  T.   Mott   shall
          immediately refund to the tenant all  amounts  not  yet  refunded
          representing overcharges and interest; and it is 

          FURTHER ORDERED, that if the landlord  Arthur  T.  Mott  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 to  the  owner  at  a
          rate not in excess of twenty percent of the amount to be refunded 
          for any one month's rent.  If, after such period, the  owner  has
          refunded no such amount and the tenant  has  not  made  any  such
          deduction from her rent as an offset, then the  tenant  may  file
          and enforce a certified copy of this order as a judgment for  the
          amount of $1,549.01 against Arthur T. Mott.

          ISSUED:

           
                                                       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