EI 710039 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. EI 710039 RO


                  BECHTOLDT CORPORATION,          DISTRICT RENT  ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO. EG 7-1-0004-RK
                                                  TENANTS:  ALFRED AND WENDY HOE

                                  PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X                                   

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 

          On September 5, 1990 the above named landlord  filed  a  petition
          for administrative review of an order issued on August 3, 1990 by 
          a   District   Rent   Administrator   concerning   the    housing
          accommodations known  as  100  Jerusalem  Avenue,  Apartment  8C,
          Hempstead, New York, wherein the Administrator determined that  a
          rent overcharge 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 December 8, 1989 upon the filing 
          of a general complaint of rent overcharge by  the  tenants.   The
          tenants stated they were not presented with a rental history.

          In response to the tenants' complaint, the landlord submitted the 
          leases of the prior tenant and the current tenant.

          In an order issued on March 6, 19 0  under  Docket  No.  DL  7-1-
          0041-R, the Administrator established  the  lawful  stabilization
          rent of $651.79 as of November 1, 1989 through  March  31,  1990.
          The Administrator  determined   that  an  overcharge  of  $558.27
          including interest through  March  31,  1990,  had  occurred  and
          assessed a fine of $250.00 on the  landlord.   The  Administrator
          directed the landlord  to  refund  to  the  tenants  a  total  of
          $808.27.

          On June 25, 1990, the  landlord  requested  modification  of  the
          Administrator's order on the basis that the Division  of  Housing
          and Community Renewal (DHCR) granted  Major  Capital  Improvement
          (MCI) increases which had not been included in the  calculations.
          Further, the landlord requested reconsideration  of  the  $250.00
          fine on the owner.

          After notice to both parties the Administrator on August 3, 1990, 
          issued an order, under review herein, amending  his  order  under
          Docket  No.  EG  7-1-0004  RK.   By   virtue   of   the   revised






          EI 710039 RO
          calculations, which included the MCI increases, the Administrator 
          established the  lawful  stabilization  rent  at  $664.27  as  of
          November 1, 1989  through  March  30,  1990.   The  Administrator
          continued the $250.00 fine on the landlord.  The overcharges were 
          computed to be $334.85, including  interest,  through  March  30,
          1990 and the landlord was  directed  to  refund  $584.85  to  the
          tenants.

          In  its  petition  for  administrative   review   the   Bechtoldt
          Corporation states that the complaint  originally  named  Harding
          and Thorton Inc. as the owner and  during  the  pendency  of  the
          proceeding the Administrator in error converted the complaint  to
          one against the petitioner.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied.

          First, the allegation raised by the  owner  in  its  petition  or
          administrative  review   is   beyond   the   scope   of   review.
          Administrative review is limited to facts or evidence  before  an
          Administrator.   The  petitioner   herein   never   raised   this
          allegation below and it is presented  on  appeal  for  the  first
          time.  It must be noted, that throughout  the  proceeding  below,
          the petitioner was named as the owner and  fully  and  vigorously
          participated and defended the complaint.  The petitioner received 
          adequate notice at every stage of the proceeding and all its  due
          process rights were protected.  Every  notice  was  sent  to  the
          petitioner and responded to.  At no point in the proceeding below 
          was the issue raised.  Further,  the  petitioner  later  made  an
          application for reconsideration, which was  granted.   When  this
          application was made, there again was no mention of this issue.

          Second, even if the substance of the petitioner's allegation were 
          to be considered, the Commissioner would deny this  petition  for
          administrative  review.   Section   2500.2(g)   of   the   Tenant
          Protection Regulations  defines  the  term  "landlord"  as  "[a]n
          owner, lessor,  sublessor,  assignee,  proprietary  lessee  of  a
          housing accommodation in a  structure  or  premises  owned  by  a
          cooperative corporation or association, or other person receiving 
          or entitled to receive rent for  the  use  or  occupancy  of  any
          housing acommodation or an agent of any of the foregoing."   Both
          an owner and a managing agent fit this definition.

          THEREFORE, pursuant to the Emergency Tenant  Protection  Act  and
          the Tenant Protection Regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that the petition be, and the same  hereby  is,  denied,
          and that the Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby  is,
          affirmed; and it is

          FURTHER ORDERED, this order may upon the expiration of the period 
          in which the landlord may  institute  a  proceeding  pursuant  to
          Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law  and  Rules,  be  filed  and
          enforced by the tenant,  who  has  vacated  the  premises,  as  a
          judgment  in  the  amount  of  $584.85  against   the   Bechtoldt
          Corportion  and/or  Harding  and  Thornton,  Inc.,  jointly   and
          severally.








          EI 710039 RO


          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