FJ 410278-RO; FJ 410554-RT

                                STATE OF NEW YORK
                          OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                   GERTZ PLAZA
                             92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                             JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. FJ 410278-RO
                                                        FJ 410554-RT

           Amuke Realty Co.               :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
           (Michael Hrynenko, Pres.),        DOCKET NO. ZCH-410539-R
                            prior owner and 
           Luiz Antonio Rosa,                CURRENT OWNER: 
                            tenant,          29 St. Marks Realty Corp.

                              PETITIONERS :

                                 NO FJ 410554-RT

      On October 29, 1991 the above-named petitioner-owner, and on October 31, 
      1991 the above-named petitioner-tenant, filed Petitions for 
      Administrative Review against an order issued on September 27, 1991 by 
      the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York 
      concerning the housing accommodations known as 29 (or 29 E, or 29 East) 
      St. Marks Place, New York, New York, Apartment No. B wherein the Rent 
      Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the tenant.

      Because there have been several proceedings, involving either the prior 
      tenant or the complainant, relevant to these appeals, set forth below is 
      a chronological listing of various events, including a notation as to 
      the source of the information:

      1    10-1-82: Prior tenant Tom O'Hara commences occupancy at a rent of 
           $450.00 [Complaint in AD-410236-R]

      2    4-1-84: Effective date of initial apartment registration of Tom 
           O'Hara at $450.00, with apartment status "Other" due to "Owner 
           Occupancy", with no lease dates listed

      3    10-1-84: Tom O'Hara's rent increases to $504.00 [Complaint in AD- 

      4    4-1-85: Effective date of 1985 apartment registration of Tom O'Hara 
           at $504.00, with apartment status "Rent Stabilized" and stating "No 
           lease.  Month to Month"

      5    9-6-85: Amuke Realty sends 1985 registration to Tom O'Hara, stating 
           month-to-month tenancy at $504.00 with no lease.  [Amuke Realty's 
           answer in AD-410236-R]

      6    4-1-86: Effective date of 1986 registration, with same information 
           as 1985 registration 

          FJ 410278-RO; FJ 410554-RT

      7    4-15-86: Date of complaint by Tom O'Hara in AD-410236-R, in which 
           he states that the apartment has never been registered

      8    4-17-86: Date of agreement for Tom O'Hara to vacate by 4-30-86 in 
           exchange for being given $5,000.00, being forgiven five months rent 
           ($2,520.00), and having Amuke Realty pay his $144.47 Con Edison 
           bill [Owner's answer in AD-410236-R.  The proceeding was later 
           terminated on 6-7-91.]

      9    9-15-86:  Sergio Franca de Sousa pays $600.00 rent and $600.00 
           security [rent receipt, signed by Vera Gina of Amuke Realty, 
           submitted by tenant in CH-410539-R]

      10   10-1-86: Sergio Frana de Sousa commences occupancy at rent of 

      11   12-1-86: Christina Rodrigues commences occupancy [Amuke Realty's 
           Petition for Administrative Review in FJ 410278-RO]

      12   1-8-87 Luiz A. Rosa (complainant) moves in without a lease 
           [Tenant's complaint in CH-410539-R]

      13   Date January, 1987 or February, 1987: Christina Rodrigues commences 
           occupancy [Tenant's answer in FJ 410278-RO]

      14   4-1-87: Effective date of 1987 registration for Christina Rodriguez 
           at a rent of $626.56 due to a Major Capital Improvement, with no 
           lease dates listed 
      15   June, 1987: Christina Rodriguez vacates [Tenant's 7-1-91 answer in 

      16   8-1-87: The first rent check of the tenant received by Amuke Realty 
           [Amuke Realty's petition in FJ 410278-RO]

      17   3-1-88: The tenant files No. CC-410039-RV, claiming that Amuke 
           Realty refuses to give him a lease but then threatens him because 
           he does not have a lease

      18   3-31-88: Michael Hrynenko of Amuke Realty claims that the subject 
           apartment is an owner-occupied registered apartment, rented on a 
           temporary, month-to-month basis to Sergio Franca de Sousa, a friend 
           of the owner's employee; that Mr. de Sousa left the country; that 
           the tenant moved into the apartment without authority to do so; and 
           that all Con Edison bills have been billed to Amuke Realty since 
           1980.  He enclosed a 6-7-84 Con Edison bill, and an 10-18-84 Con 
           Edison security deposit receipt, both listing him at the subject 
           apartment [Amuke Realty's answer in CC-410039-RV]

      19   4-1-88: Effective date of 1988 registration of apartment as being 
           occupied by Michael Hrynenko at a rent of $618.74 due to a Major 
           Capital Improvement, with no lease dates given, and with apartment 
           status of "Rent Stabilized" due to "Owner Occupied/Employee."
      20   7-30-88: Amuke Realty mails the 1988 registration to Michael 
      Hrynenko at the subject apartment [Tenant's answer in CC-410039-RV]

      21   8-22-88: Date of tenant's complaint docketed as CH-410539-R (the 

          FJ 410278-RO; FJ 410554-RT

      order which has been appealed in this proceeding)

      22   1-30-89: The tenant submits a statement that the owner is refusing 
           to give him a lease [CC-410039-RV]

      23   4-1-89: Effective date of 1989 registration of apartment as being 
           occupied by Michael Hrynenko at a rent of $618.74 due to a renewal, 
           with no lease dates given, and with apartment status of "exempt" 
           due to "Owner Occupied/Employee."

      24   4-1-90: Effective date of 1990 registration of apartment as being 
           occupied by Michael Hrynenko at a rent of $618.74, with no lease 
           dates given, and with apartment status of "Rent Stabilized."  (This 
           is the last registration appearing on the DHCR's computerized rent 
           registration system.)

      25   4-26-90: Date of answer by tenant in CC-410039-RV, in which he 
           states that Amuke Realty is fraudulently registering the apartment 
           as owner-occupied; that he, not Amuke Realty, has been paying the 
           electric bill, phone bill and rent since January, 1987; and that he 
           is not an employee of Amuke Realty.  The tenant included a copy of 
           the envelope in which Amuke Realty mailed the 1988 registration to 
           Michael Hrynenko (its president) at the subject apartment; copies 
           of several cancelled rent checks from 12-15-87 to 2-5-90; telephone 
           bills in his name for February and March, 1990: cancelled checks to 
           Con Edison in February, 1990; and a 2-17-88 3-day notice from Amuke 
           Realty demanding payment of the $603.10 rent for February ($618.74 
           minus previous overpayments of $15.64).

      26   9-14-90: The tenant makes the same contentions and submissions as 
           on 4-26-90, and additionally contends that his tenancy is not 
           "without consent" of the owner, since the owner has accepted his 
           rent for 45 months and has failed to bring an eviction proceeding; 
           that he is entitled to a written lease; that the owner sends him 
           the Con Edison bills each month; that he is therefore being forced 
           to pay a commercial rate for residential use of electricity; that 
           the owner has never lived or performed any business functions in 
           the subject apartment; that neither the owner's family nor the 
           owner's employees reside in the apartment; that neither his current 
           nor previous roommates have been employed by or related to the 
           owner; that the owner has committed perjury by registering the 
           apartment as owner occupied; that the owner is engaging in the same 
           fraudulent scheme in other rent-stabilized units owned under other 
           corporate names such as "Forage Realty Corp." and "Kiev Realty 
           Corp."  [Michael Hrynenko submitted the agreement between Tom 
           O'Hara and Amuke Realty on Forage Realty Corporation letterhead, 
           with the same address as Amuke Realty]; that the owner has falsely 
           registered 37 1/2 St. Marks Place, Apt. A-2, owned as Forage Realty 
           Corporation, as "owner occupied/exempt"; and that the purpose of 
           this illegal scheme is to enable the owner to collect unlawful 
           rents on the falsely-registered stabilized units and to avoid 
           paying any income taxes on the unreported rental income of such 
           units.  In addition to documents submitted earlier, the tenant 
           enclosed his cancelled rent checks, endorsed by Amuke Realty, 
           through August, 1990; cancelled checks to Con Edison through July, 
           1990; and Con Edison bills for March and April, 1990, such bills 
           being for "service to Amuke Realty Corp. for renting purposes at 29 
           St. Marks Place B", with "Rate EL2 Small Non-Resid."  [Answer in 

          FJ 410278-RO; FJ 410554-RT


      27   11-16-90: An order is issued in CC-410039-RV, determining that the 
           tenant is entitled to a written lease, directing Amuke Realty to 
           offer a vacancy lease commencing at least 120 days after the offer, 
           and directing Amuke Realty to update the registration within 30 
           days of the order.

      28   12-17-90: The tenant affirms that Amuke Realty has not complied 
           with the order in CC-410039-RV.  [CC-410039-RV]

      29   12-27-90: An amended order is issued in CC-410039-RV, directing 
           Amuke Realty to offer a "written" lease rather than a "vacancy" 

      30   1-11-91: Date of notice from Amuke Realty to tenants that 29 St. 
           Mark's Realty Corp. is the new owner.  [Tenant's 7-2-91 answer in 

      31   4-1-91: The tenant begins paying his rent into an escrow account 
           [Tenant's 7-2-91 answer in CH-410539-R]

      32   4-19-91: The tenant states that he had an oral lease with Amuke 
           Realty to reside in the apartment [Tenant's answer in CH-410539-R]

      33   6-7-91: Prior tenant Tom O'Hara's complaint in AD-410236-R is 
           terminated because the condition was resolved.

      34   7-2-91: Date of answer by tenant in CH-410539-R, in which he 
           contends that he paid $600.00 per month to Amuke Realty from 
           January, 1987 through May, 1987; that he paid $618.74 per month to 
           29 St. Marks Realty Corp. beginning 2-1-91, with the rent paid into 
           an escrow account beginning 4-1-91 due to the new owner's failure 
           to repair; that Sergio de Sousa, his former roommate, had lived in 
           the apartment in 1986; that other tenants in the building state 
           that there was an elderly rent-controlled tenant living in the 
           apartment at some point prior to Mr. de Sousa's tenancy; that 
           Christina Rodrigues lived with him in the apartment from February 
           to June, 1987; that $450.00 is not the lawful 4-1-84 rent; that 
           none of the other apartments in the building rented for anywhere 
           near $450.00 on 4-1-84; that both the 1984 building registration 
           summary, as well as an Owner's Application for Certification of 
           Rent Roll, obtained by Amuke Realty when it bought the building and 
           submitted to the DHCR with the date deleted, list the apartment as 
           exempt rather than rent stabilized; and that the DHCR should 
           therefore require evidence of leases prior to 1984.  The tenant 
           enclosed a 9-15-86 rent receipt from Amuke Realty showing Sergio 
           Franco de Sousa as paying security of $600.00 and rent of $600.00 
           for October, 1986, and an Application for Certification of Rent 
           Roll, with the date deleted but appearing to have been in the 
           1960's, by Amuke Realty and the executor of the estate of Walter 
           Swindunovich, with the latter's address given as 29 St. Mark's 
           Place and with the subject apartment listed as owner-occupied.  
           (The DHCR's files contain an undated document from the N.Y.C. Rent 
           and Rehabilitation Administration, listing Walter Swidunovich as 
           the owner and determining that the subject apartment occupied by 
           Olga Zaremba was not subject to Rent Control.)

          FJ 410278-RO; FJ 410554-RT

      35   9-27-91: Order is issued in CH-410539-R, naming the new owner 29 
           St. Marks Realty, and finding an overcharge of $9,653.40, including 
           excess security and treble damages, from 1-1-87 through 3-31-91.  
           The lawful 1-1-87 rent of $529.75 is calculated as a one-year 
           vacancy lease increase over $466.74 (the 4-1-84 rent of $450.00 as 
           increased by a Major Capital Improvement).  All rent calculations 
           are based on the tenant's submissions because Amuke Realty failed 
           to respond to two requests for rental information.

      In his petition (Docket No. FJ 410554-RT) against the order in Docket 
      No. CH-410539-R, the tenant contends in substance that he agrees with 
      and fully accepts $450.00 as the 4-1-84 legal registered rent, that the 
      Rent Stabilization Code bars the owner from collecting any increase 
      above the base rent of $450.00 until offering a lease and properly 
      registering the subject apartment; that the owner has never presented 
      him with a proper registration but has, rather, deliberately and 
      fraudulently registered the apartment as owner-occupied; that Section 
      2528.4 of the Code therefore bars the owner from collecting any rent in 
      excess of the legal regulated rent in effect on April first of the year 
      for which an annual registration was required to be filed; and that  in 
      any event the owner was being allowed to charge too much for the 
      installation of a new gas boiler, since Order No. ZLS-000873-OM divided 
      the cost among five apartments excluding the "owner occupied" subject 
      apartment, and then applied that increase to the subject apartment as 

      The file does not contain any answer by the former or current owners.

      The tenant subsequently informed the DHCR that he had vacated the 
      subject apartment.

      Michael Hrynenko, President of Amuke Realty Corp., the prior owner, also 
      filed a Petition for Administrative Review (Docket No. FJ 410278-RO) 
      against the order in CH-410539-R.  In his petition the prior owner 
      asserts in substance that the 4-1-84 rent was $450.00; that it was 
      registered for 4-1-85 as $504.00; that it remained at $504.00 on 4-1-86 
      with the same tenant; that a new tenant De Sousa moved in in December, 
      1986 at a legal vacancy rent of $606.36; that an M.C.I. order made the 
      legal permanent rent $618.74; that the complainant was never brought in 
      as a tenant, but moved in illegally; that he first paid a rent check in 
      August, 1987, which was accepted; that Amuke Realty never gave him a 
      lease or told him what to pay; that all rent increases have been in 
      accordance with the Rent Guidelines Board orders; that the complainant 
      has never been registered as a tenant, although his rent was accepted; 
      that tenant Rodrigues was registered in 1987; that the petitioner 
      Michael Hrynenko has been registered since then, either as exempt or 
      with the $618.74 rent; that there was no overcharge; and that in any 
      case any overcharge could not have been willful since the petitioner 
      Michael Hrynenko never specified a rental amount or demanded the rent 
      from the tenant, who just sent checks in amounts that he felt 

      In answer, the tenant repeats the same assertions set forth in his own 
      Petition for Administrative Review, and additionally contends in 
      substance that, contrary to the prior owner's assertion that no rent was 
      demanded or specified, the prior owner accepted his checks and detailed 
      in writing the amount to be paid, and that the prior owner has ignored 
      the DHCR's order to issue his first lease ever.

          FJ 410278-RO; FJ 410554-RT

      The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition (Docket No. 
      FJ 410278-RO) should be denied, and that the tenant's petition (Docket 
      No. FJ 410554-RT should be granted.

      The Administrator's order (Docket No. CH-410539-R) under appeal deemed 
      leases beginning in January, 1987 (when the tenant commenced occupancy) 
      to correspond with the dates when the tenant's rent was increased.  No 
      leases were deemed for the period from April, 1984 through December, 
      1986.  The tenant is contending that no leases should be deemed, and no 
      increases allowed, above the registered 4-1-84 rent of $450.00.  The 
      owner is essentially contending that leases should be deemed for all 
      tenancies and all rent increases.

      A deemed lease is a lease created by the DHCR to cover a period when a 
      tenant has occupied an apartment without a written lease but has 
      voluntarily paid a rent increase.  It is an equitable exemption to the 
      normal requirement that an owner execute a lease with a tenant in order 
      to receive a rent increase.  Leases might typically be deemed, if at 
      all, in a prior tenancy in a smaller building operated on an informal 
      basis, where an owner charged regular increases based on Guidelines 
      percentages, where a tenant failed to complain of the owner's failure to 
      give her or him a lease, and where such tenant's voluntary payment of 
      rent increases while peacefully continuing in possession would not have 
      served to alert the owner to take action (to either offer a lease or sue 
      for eviction)  lest it eventually be determined by the DHCR that the 
      voluntary payments were ineffective to increase the rent for the several 
      years that they were made.  Because the deemed lease principle is an 
      equitable rule, it should not be used where an owner is undeserving of 
      special consideration, such as when an owner's failure to offer leases 
      is part of a larger pattern of depriving a tenant of her or his rights 
      under the Rent Stabilization Law.

      The Commissioner does not find Amuke Realty or 29 St. Marks Realty Corp. 
      to be faultless owners deserving of special consideration.  Neither has, 
      at least since prior to Tom O'Hara's initial tenancy on October 1, 1982, 
      offered any stabilized leases to any tenants, even though they had 
      established a landlord-tenant relationship by accepting rent for periods 
      of years at a time, even (when the complainant was late with the 
      February, 1988 rent) billing for an amount due after crediting for 
      payments made in excess of $618.74 after it stopped charging a temporary 
      M.C.I. increase.  While there is no evidence in Docket No. AD-410236-R 
      that Amuke Realty ever attempted to evict Tom O'Hara, it did attempt to 
      establish a claim to its right to do so by claiming on the 1985 
      registration that he was a "month to month" tenant.  By that time, 
      however, Amuke Realty had been accepting his rent payments for nearly 
      three years, as part of a landlord-tenant relationship, and he had all 
      the protections and rights given by the Rent Stabilization Law.  Amuke 
      Realty had also registered the apartment as owner occupied in 1984, even 
      though there is no evidence that Tom O'Hara was an owner or even an 
      employee, and even though he paid rent, as shown both by the 
      registrations as well as by the fact that the agreement to vacate within 
      13 days that Amuke Realty had him sign immediately after he filed a 
      complaint with the DHCR included the forgiveness of five months back 
      rent at $504.00 per month, in addition to a payment to him of $5,000.00 
      and payment of his utility bill.

      On April 1, 1987 the apartment was being occupied without a lease by 

          FJ 410278-RO; FJ 410554-RT

      Christina Rodrigues (who vacated two months later) and the complainant.  
      The owner registered Ms. Rodrigues as a stabilized tenant.  For April 1, 
      1988, by which time the tenant had filed a complaint that Amuke Realty 
      would not give him a lease yet was threatening him because he did not 
      have a lease, Michael Hrynenko registered himself as the stabilized 
      tenant at a rent of $618.74 and with no lease dates, registered the 
      apartment status as "owner occupied/employee", and mailed the 
      registration to himself at the subject apartment.   The 1989 
      registration was similar, other than for listing the apartment as 
      "exempt" and for stating that "renewal" was the reason for a rent change 
      [even though the listed rent remained the same and even though there was 
      no lease to renew].  The 1990 registration [the last one appearing in 
      the DHCR's computerized rent registration system] again showed Michael 
      Hrynenko as the tenant at the same rent without a lease, although the 
      apartment was listed as "rent stabilized" rather than "exempt" or "owner 
      occupied/employee."  Accurate, truthful apartment registrations are 
      essential for the proper functioning of the present rent stabilization 
      system, which relieves owners of some of the record-keeping requirements 
      they had under the former Rent Stabilization Code in exchange for their 
      annual submission of information which is relied upon in future 
      proceedings.  The 1984, 1988 and 1989 registrations falsely claimed that 
      the subject apartment was occupied by the owner or an employee.  The 
      1988, 1989 and 1990 registrations falsely claimed that Michael Hrynenko 
      was the tenant.  In addition, the complainant did not acquiesce in 
      voluntarily paying rent increases without a lease.  Approximately one 
      year after he commenced occupancy he filed a complaint about not being 
      given a lease.  Six months later he filed an overcharge complaint which 
      questioned, among other things, "[h]ow does rent increase apply when 
      tenant has not been provided with a legal lease?"  Despite these 
      complaints the prior owner did not offer him a lease, and in fact the 
      present owner apparently continued in that refusal even after being 
      ordered by the DHCR to offer a lease.

      [The Commissioner notes that in a petition verified on January 15, 1992 
      in a proceeding to evict the tenant for non-payment of the rent which he 
      had been putting in escrow since April, 1991 because of certain alleged 
      conditions in his apartment, the attorney for the current owner 29 St. 
      Marks Realty Corp. stated that the tenant had entered into possession 
      pursuant to a lease wherein he promised to pay a monthly rent of 
      $564.18, that the owner had registered rents and services, and that the 
      owner was in compliance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code.  DHCR 
      records indicate that all of these statements are untrue, since the 
      tenant has never had a lease, since the registrations were either false 
      (1984, and 1988 to 1990) or not done at all (1991), and since the owner 
      did  not give the tenant a lease, even after being ordered to do so.  
      The trial date was adjourned to March 31, 1992.  Six weeks after that 
      date the tenant informed the DHCR of a new address.]

      For all the reasons set forth above, the Commissioner finds that there 
      was a pattern of attempting to deprive tenants of their rights under the 
      Rent Stabilization Law, that therefore leases should not be deemed for 
      any rent increases after the initial registration, and that the 
      presumption of willful overcharge has not been rebutted, so treble 
      damages should be imposed.  As was done by the Administrator, leases are 
      also not deemed for periods prior to the complainant's tenancy because 
      the owner did not respond to requests for rental data about them.  The 
      Commissioner has set forth the lawful stabilization rents and the amount 
      of overcharge on an amended rent calculation chart attached hereto and 

          FJ 410278-RO; FJ 410554-RT

      made a part hereof.  

      Section 2528.4 of the Rent Stablization Code provides that: 

           The failure to properly and timely comply with the initial or 
           annual rent registration as required by this Part shall, until 
           such time as such registration is completed, bar an owner from 
           applying for or collecting any rent in excess of:

           a) if no initial registration has taken place, the legal 
           regulated rent in effect on the date that the housing 
           accommodation became subject to the registration requirements 
           of this Part; or 

           b) the legal regulated rent in effect on April first of the 
           year for which an annual registration was required to be 
           filed, or such other date of that year as may be determined by 
           the DHCR pursuant to section 2528.3 of this Part (Annual 
           Registration Requirements).

           The late filing of a registration shall result in the 
           elimination, prospectively of such penalty.

      The initial registration cannot be considered to constitute proper 
      compliance with registration requirements, since it falsely claimed that 
      the apartment was exempt because of owner occupancy.  Several later 
      registrations falsely claimed either owner/employee occupancy and/or 
      that Michael Hrynenko was a stabilized tenant.  Pursuant to Section 
      2528.4, as well as Sections 2522.4(a)(2) and 2522.4(a)(4) of the Code 
      and Sections 41 and 42B of the former Code (which provide in pertinent 
      part that an owner may not increase the rent for an MCI unless the lease 
      contain a clause providing for an increase during the lease term based 
      upon an order by the rent agency or the Rent Guidelines Board) the 
      $16.74 increase granted for a Major Capital Improvement ("MCI") may not 
      be added to the lawful rent until the owner both amends the 
      registrations to state the correct information and gives a written leae 
      to the tenant then in occupancy.  At that time the MCI increase may be 
      added, prospectively only (i.e., with no arrears).  Only $16.74 may be 
      added at that time, with no increases due to Guidelines.  The failure to 
      give any written leases since before the base date also means the owner 
      is not entitled to any Guidelines or vacancy increases for any tenancies 
      or any rent increases charged before a written lease is given.  This 
      loss of increases is permanent; no potential past increases may be 
      recouped upon the giving of a written stabilized lease.  That is, the 
      lawful stablization rent is $450.00 until the owner offers a written 
      lease and amends the registrations; $466.74 [$450.00 plus the $16.74 MCI 
      increase] is the base on which any future Guidelines increases would be 

      Section 2526.1(f) of the current Rent Stabilization Code provides in 
      substance that for overcharges collected on or after April 1, 1984, a 
      current owner shall be respond for all overcharge penalties, including 
      penalties based upon overcharges collected by any prior owner.  This 
      means that the tenant may collect the $27,101.78 in overcharges 
      attributable to Amuke Realty Corp. through January 31, 1991 from either 
      Amuke Realty Corp. or from 29 St. Marks Realty Corp. 29 St. Marks Realty 
      Corp. is solely liable for the overcharges which it collected beginning 
      February 1, 1991.  Overcharges are calculated only through March 31, 

          FJ 410278-RO; FJ 410554-RT

      1991, since the tenant started paying his rent into escrow on April 1, 
      1991.  If the tenant was eventually required to pay rent for periods 
      after March 31, 1991 he may wish to file another overcharge complaint.

      This order is issued is without prejudice to any rights that the current 
      owner may have against the prior owner for overcharges reimbursed by the 
      current owner which the prior owner had collected.

      The owner is cautioned to adjust the rent, in leases after those 
      considered in this order, to amounts no greater than that determined by 
      this order plus any lawful increases, and to register any adjusted rent, 
      with this order being given as the reason for the adjustment.  Because 
      the complainant has vacated, a copy of this order is being sent to the 
      current tenant.

      This order may, upon the expiration of the period in which the owner or 
      prior owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the 
      Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and enforced in the same manner 
      as a judgment.

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

      ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is, denied; 
      that the tenant's petition be, and the same hereby is, granted; and that 
      the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, modified in 
      accordance with this order and opinion.  The lawful stabilization rents 
      and the amounts of overcharge are set forth on the attached rent 
      calculation chart, which is fully made part of this order.
      The total overcharge is $25,995.50 as of March 31, 1991.  The lawful 
      stabilization rent is $450.00 per month as of March 31, 1991.


                                      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