FE 610462 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     S.J.R. 6220
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  FE 610462-RO

                   PAULINE SPILKY/
            237 WEST 230 STREET REALTY CORP.,
                         BY                       DRO DOCKET NO.: CF 610078-R
          HSC MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AGENT,       TENANT:  TERRY LINEHAN

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


            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                         AND
                        MODIFYING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER


          On May 16, 1991, the  above-named  owner  filed  a  Petition  for
          Administrative Review against an order issued on April 12,  1991,
          by a Rent Administrator, concerning housing accommodations  known
          as Apartment 2E, 239 West 230th Street,  New  York,  wherein  the
          Administrator determined that the tenant had been overcharged.

          Subsequent thereto,  the  petitioner  filed  a  petition  in  the
          Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the  Civil  Practice  Law
          and Rules in the nature of a  mandamus  proceeding  to  have  its
          petition decided in an expeditious manner.

          On March  13,  1992,  an  order  was  issued  by  Justice  McKeon
          directing the  Division  to  decide  the  owner's  administrative
          appeal.

          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.

          This proceeding was originally commenced on June 8, 1988  by  the
          filing by the tenant of an overcharge complaint.  The tenant  had
          assumed occupancy  of  the  subject  apartment  on  May  1,  1985
          pursuant to a two year lease at a monthly rent of $363.07.

          The owner was served with the complaint and directed to submit  a
          rental history.

          Subsequently, on January 22, 1991,  the  Administrator  sent  the
          owner another request for the rent history, specifying copies  of
          all leases dating from April 1,  1984  and  proof  of  costs  for
          apartment improvements.  The  owner  was  also  notified  of  the
          treble damages penalty.

          In an order issued on April  12,  1991,  the  Rent  Administrator






          FE 610462 RO
          determined that the  tenant  had  been  overcharged  a  total  of
          $8,010.48, including treble damages and excess security, covering 
          the period from March 1, 1985 through April  30,  1991.   It  was
          specifically found that, although twice requested, the owner  had
          failed to submit copies of leases dating from April 1,  1984  and
          that,  as  a  result,  no  vacancy  allowance  was   granted   in
          calculating the tenant's vacancy lease commencing May 1, 1985.

          It its petition, the  owner  contends  that  the  Administrator's
          order was in conflict  with  a  prior  Division  of  Housing  and
          Community Renewal (DHCR)  order  issued  on  September  10,  1986
          concerning the same tenant  and  premises  wherein  the  tenant's
          lawful vacancy rent was determined as $362.57, or only $.50  less
          than she was charged,  and  that  total  overcharges  were  $8.97
          through  August  31,  1986.   The   owner   contends   that   the
          Administrator improperly re-determined the lawful  rent  for  the
          same lease period that had been decided in its prior order, which 
          had never been appealed, and then continued to  find  overcharges
          based  on  this  incorrect  rent  in  subsequent   lease   terms.
          Furthermore, by utilizing the rent determined in the first  order
          of $362.57 per month, it is found that there are  no  overcharges
          due the tenant because the rent had only been  increased  by  the
          appropriate guidelines amount and the Major  Capital  Improvement
          (MCI) increases authorized in DHCR order  Z-BCS  000384-OM.   The
          owner contends that the DHCR had no  authority  to  override  its
          prior order which, not having been appealed, represents  a  final
          determination.

          The tenant's answer states that the  petition  should  be  denied
          because the owner had repeatedly and willfully refused to  submit
          copies of the leases dating from April 1, 1984.

          The Commissioner is of the  opinion  that  the  owner's  petition
          should  be  granted  and  the  Administrator's  order  should  be
          modified.

          The record in this case establishes that the DHCR issued an order 
          on September 10, 1986 under Docket Number B-803568-R, wherein the 
          Administrator determined the lawful rent of the subject  tenant's
          vacancy lease as $362.57.  This order, which was not appealed  by
          either party, was apparently ignored  by  the  Administrator  who
          issued the order here under review, because a new lawful rent was 
          determined for the same vacancy lease without  reference  to  the
          earlier order.  Significantly,  the  later  order  determined  an
          overcharge by  denying  the  subject-tenant's  vacancy  allowance
          because of the  owner's  failure  to  provide  a  complete  lease
          history.  However, since this is  in  conflict  with  the  DHCR's
          holding in the earlier proceeding,  the  denial  of  the  vacancy
          allowance was improper.  It is noted that the owner  did  provide
          the required leases in that case.  Insofar  as  the  later  order
          contradicts the earlier one, it is invalid.

          However, the tenant's second overcharge complaint was  filed  two
          years after the first order was issued, and specifically requests 
          a review of subsequent rent increases, most of which  concern  an
          MCI order, number BCS-00384-OM.  Therefore, the second order  was
          independent of the first  insofar  as  it  concerned  this  later
          period of  review.   An  examination  of  this  subsequent  lease
          history reveals that, by  adjusting  the  lawful  lease  rent  to






          FE 610462 RO
          include the vacancy  allowance,  there  are  no  overcharges,  as
          documented in the rent calculations chart affixed hereto and made 
          a part hereof.  It is noted that the lease commencing May 1, 1984 
          for the prior tenant, which was immediately prior to  the  period
          reviewed in the calculations chart, was for a one  year  duration
          at a rent of $311.22 per month, and resulted in no overcharges.

          If  the  owner  has  already  complied  with  the  District  Rent
          Administrator's order and there are arrears due to the owner as a 
          result  of  the  instant  determination,  the  tenant  shall   be
          permitted  to  pay  off  the  arrears  in  twelve  equal  monthly
          installments.  Should the tenant vacate  after  the  issuance  of
          this order, said arrears shall be payable immediately.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,  granted;
          and that the Administrator's order be, and  the  same  hereby  is
          modified in accordance with this order and opinion.



          ISSUED:

                                                  ------------------------
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  Acting 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