Docket Nos. EK220210RT and FA220161RT
                                    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
          APPEALS OF                                   DOCKET NOS. EK220210RT
                                                              FA220161RT  

                                                  DISTRICT RENT             
          Charles Almon,                          ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NOS. DA220034BT  
                                                       EE220012BT
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


              On November 19, 1990, the above-named tenant filed a petition 
          for administrative review, under Docket No. EK220210RT, of an 
          Administrator's order issued on November 9, 1990 under Docket No. 
          DA220034BT concerning the housing accommodation known as Apartment 
          4A, 116 Remsen Street, Brooklyn, New York.  On January 18, 1991, 
          the above-named tenant filed a petition for administrative review, 
          under Docket No. FA220161RT, of an Administrator's order issued on 
          January 11, 1991 under Docket No. EE220012BT concerning the above- 
          mentioned premises.

              Since the petitions involve common questions of law and fact, 
          the Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate the 
          proceedings for disposition herein.

              The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record 
          relevant to the issues raised by the petitions for administrative 
          review.

              The issues in this proceedings are whether the Administrator 
          should have granted the subject landlord maximum base rent (M.B.R.) 
          increases for the 1988-1989 biennial cycle and the 1990-1991 
          biennial cycle.

              On January 17, 1989, the subject tenant filed a challenge which 
          asserted, among other things, that the subject landlord  
          miscalculated the 1988-1989 M.B.R., and that in calculating the 
          1988-1989 M.B.R. the subject landlord improperly used the short 
          form (RN-26S).

              On May 3, 1990, the subject tenant filed a challenge of the 
          990-1991 M.B.R. order of eligibility.  In his challenge the subject 
          tenant, among other things, reiterated his allegations that the 












          Docket Nos. EK220210RT and FA220161RT

          subject landlord has miscalculated the M.B.R.

              On November 9, 1990 the Administrator issued the order under 
          review herein, under Docket No. DA220034BT, which affirmed the 
          M.B.R. order of eligibility for the 1988-1989 period effective 
          January 1, 1988.

              On January 11, 1991 the Administrator issued the order under 
          review herein, under Docket No. EE220012BT, which affirmed the 
          M.B.R. order of eligibility for the 1990-1991 period effective 
          January 1, 1990.

              In the tenant's petition filed under Docket No. EK220210RT he 
          asserts, among other things, that the landlord had been granted a 
          major capital improvement (M.C.I.) rent increase; that the above- 
          mentioned fact precludes the landlord from computing the M.B.R. for 
          the applicable period on a short form (RN-26S), and that the 
          landlord improperly calculated the M.B.R. for the subject 
          apartment.

              In the tenant's petition filed under Docket No. FA220161RT he 
          states that: "That landlord has met violation certification 
          requirements was never contested by tenant.  Tenant's complaint 
          concerns willful, incorrect figures landlord used to calculate 1990 
          MBR...."

              After careful consideration, the Commissioner finds that the 
          tenant's petitions should be denied.

              The Commissioner notes that in both of the aforementioned 
          challenges filed by the subject tenant it states that:  "This Form 
          is used only to file objections to an Order of Eligibility, Maximum 
          Base Rents.  This form may not be used to register complaints ... 
          Complaints of Rent Overcharge are filed on Form RA-89."

              The Commissioner points out that the tenant in his petitions is 
          not disputing the fact that the landlord has met the violation 
          certification requirements to be eligible for increases in the 
          1988-1989 and 1990-1991 M.B.R.

              As the tenant is not disputing the landlord's eligibility for 
          increases in the M.B.R., the Commissioner finds that the tenant 
          does not raise any issues which would warrant the revocation of the 
          Administrator's orders under review herein.

              Assuming arguendo that the landlord calculating the M.B.R. on 
          the short form were improper, the Commissioner finds that this, by 
          itself, does not warrant a revocation of the Administrator's orders 
          under review herein.  The Commissioner is of the opinion that the 
          issue of the landlord calculating the M.B.R. on a short form, 
          instead of a long form, only pertains to the proper calculation of 
          the M.B.R., and that that issue does not pertain to the subject 






          Docket Nos. EK220210RT and FA220161RT

          landlord's M.B.R. eligibility requirements.

              As to the other issues raised in the tenant's petitions, the 
          Commissioner finds that those issues also relate to the calculation 
          of the subject apartment's maximum rent and M.B.R., and not to the 
          landlord's M.B.R. eligibility requirements.
                   
              Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator's 
          orders under review herein should not be disturbed.

              The Commissioner notes that the subject tenant filed an 
          overcharge complaint, dated January 1, 1993, which is currently 
          pending before the rent agency under Docket No. HA220109R.  The 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the issues raised in the 
          tenant's petitions pertaining to the calculation of the subject 
          apartment's M.B.R. and maximum rent will be determined by the 
          Administrator in the above-mentioned proceeding pending under 
          Docket No. HA220109R.

              The Commissioner finds that this order and opinion is issued 
          without prejudice to the aforementioned tenant's overcharge 
          complaint currently pending under Docket No. HA220109R.

              THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation 
          Law and Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

              ORDERED, that the tenant's petitions, filed under Docket NOS. 
          EK220210RT and FA220161RT, be, and the same hereby are, denied, and 
          that the Administrator's orders, issued under Docket NOS. 
          DA220034BT and EE220012BT, be, and the same hereby are, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                            
                                             Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                             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