EK 210233-RT; EK210251-RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.:
RUTH AND IRVING TEITELL, tenants EK 210251-RO
LEFRAK CORPORATION, owners RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONERS BE 210125-R
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING THE OWNER'S AND DENYING
THE TENANT'S PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 15, 1990, the above-named petitioner-tenants filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
November 9, 1990 by a Rent Administrator concerning housing
accommodations, known as Apartment 3-E at 2625 East 13th Street,
Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined
that the tenant had been overcharged in the amount of $73.14,
including interest and excess security.
On November 19, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against the same administra-
The issue in this appeal is whether the District Rent Adminis-
trator's order was warranted.
The applicable sections of the Law are Section 26-516 of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Sections 2528.2 and 2528.3 of the current
Rent Stabilization Code
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 of a rent
overcharge complaint by the tenants on April 23, 1987.
The tenants took occupancy pursuant to a three year lease com-
mencing November 1, 1972, and expiring October 31, 1975, at a
monthly rent of $ 250.00. The complaint also stated that the
rent on March 31, 1980 was $ 325.08.
EK 210233-RT; EK210251-RO
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and was di-
rected to submit a complete rent history from the base date,
including copies of all leases. The owner complied with this
In Order No. BE 210125-R issued on November 9, 1990, the District
Rent Administrator determined that the initial legal registered
rent of $400.27 had been lawfully established since the tenants
had not filed a challenge of the amount in a timely manner.
Subsequently an overcharge occurred in the lease term commencing
December 1, 1988 in the amount of $2.69 per mont . Total over-
charges, including interest and excess security, amounted to
In their petition, dated November 15, 1990, the tenants chal-
lenged the increase of their rent from $301.00 to $313.20 in a
lease executed in 1978. The tenants also object to a fuel sur-
charge that was never removed from the base rent.
The owner's petition challenges the Administrator's calculation
of the lawful rent for the lease commencing December 1, 1988 in
that the Administrator failed to include a permanent MCI increase
into the base used to calculate the guidelines increase, thereby
mistakenly finding an overcharge.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenant's petition
should be denied and that the owner's petition should be granted.
Although the tenant challenges two rent increases which were
imposed prior to the initial legal registered rent, the record
establishes that the subject-premises were duly registered in
1984, and that the complainants' rent on April 1, 1984 was
adopted as the initial legal registered rent, in accordance with
Section 2521.1(c) of the current Rent Stabilization Code. Section
2526 further provides that unless the initial legal registered
rent is successfully challenged by the tenant in occupancy within
90 days of the mailing of a copy of the registration statement
to the tenant, no subsequent challenge may be entertained.
Insofar as the complaint alleged no defect in this initial regis
tration, the Administrator properly limited review of the lease
history to the period subsequent to it. Therefore, the Adminis-
trator properly determined that the rent increases occurring in
1978 were beyond his scope of review.
However, the owner's petition correctly bases its challenge to
the finding of overcharges in the lease commencing on December 1,
1988 on the Administrator's failure to include a permanent MCI
increase in the prior base rent. Specifically the enclosed MCI
order, under Docket No. KS 000553-OM, authorizes a permanent
increase of $2.47, collectible as of November 1, 1986. Although
the Administrator's rent calculations chart mentions this
increase, it ignores it in calculating the guidelines increase
for the lease commencing December 1, 1988. This is apparently
because the December 1, 1986 lease rent fails to include it.
However, that lease was actually dated and signed prior to the
EK 210233-RT; EK210251-RO
issuance of the MCI order, on November 19, 1986, and it would
thus be improper to conclude, as apparently the Administrator
did, that the owner had waived the increase. In fact, the
owner's timely notice, dated December 9, 1986, informs the tenant
of the exact amount of the increase and the effective date. By
adding the $2.47 permanent increase to the December 1, 1986 base
of $475.56, the adjusted base of $478.03 results in a lawful rent
for the December 1, 1988 lease of $521.05, which was the amount
actually collected. As a result, all overcharges found in the
order are eliminated.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
granted and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, revoked.