HK410017RP

                                  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. NO. 6644
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.HK410017RP
                                              :            (GH510037RO)
                                                 DRO DOCKET NO.ZEA510399R
               CAROLYN MAITLAND                  TENANT: JUANITA COLBERT

                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             
             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               In August, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on July 
          9, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, 
          Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          611 West 145th Street, New York, New York, Apartment No. 3F, wherein 
          the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the 
          tenant.

               On September 3, 1992, the Commissioner issued an order 
          dismissing the owner's petition on the basis that it was not timely 
          filed.  

               Subsequent thereto, the petitioner-owner filed a petition in 
          the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law 
          and Rules requesting that the order of the Commissioner be annulled.  
          The proceeding was then remitted to consider the petition as timely 
          and to decide it on the merits.

               The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions of Section 2526.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

               The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was 
          warranted.

               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 commenced in January, 1990, by the filing 
          of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant.  A copy of the 
          complaint was served on the owner and in response, the owner (niece 
          of previous owner) stated in substance that the tenant was not being 
          overcharged and had not paid a rent increase in many years.

               In Docket Number ZEA510399R, the Rent Administrator determined 
          that the tenant had been overcharged in the amount of $2723.10 
          including treble damages.










          HK410017RP




               In this petition, the owner alleges in substance that in 1990 
          the owner of the building suffered a loss in the amount of $7,520.00 
          and in 1991 a loss in the amount of $5,545.00; that the rent 
          increase was not done to penalize the tenant but done with the 
          intent to decrease the owner's expenses; and that even with the rent 
          increase to the tenant, the owner is losing money at such a rapid 
          rate that there are no potential buyers willing to purchase the 
          subject premises.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 
          denied.

               The apartment herein is subject to the Rent Stabilization Law 
          and Code and rent increases are limited to those permitted by said 
          Law and Code.  The fact that an owner may be losing money on a 
          building is not a permissible reason to increase the rent of a rent 
          stabilized apartment unless the owner has applied for a hardship 
          rent increase and been granted same pursuant to Section 2522.4(b) or 
          (c) of the Rent Stabilization Code.  In the instant case, the owner 
          has not made such an application so that the Rent Administrator's 
          order finding a rent overcharge was warranted.

               The owner is directed to reflect the findings and 
          determinations made in this order on all future registration 
          statements, including those for the current year if not already 
          filed, citing this order as the basis for the change.  Registration 
          statements already on file, however, should not be amended to 
          reflect the findings and determinations made in this order.  The 
          owner is further directed to adjust subsequent rents to an amount no 
          greater than that determined by this order plus any lawful 
          increases.

               The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that 
          the owner collected overcharges of $2723.10.  This Order may, upon 
          expiration of the period for seeking review of this Order and 
          Opinion pursuant to Article Seventy-eight of the Civil Practice Law 
          and Rules, be filed and enforced as a judgment or not in excess of 
          twenty percent per month of the overcharge may be offset against any 
          rent thereafter due the owner.  Where the tenant credits the 
          overcharge, the tenant may add to the overcharge, or where the 
          tenant files this Order as a judgment, the County Clerk may add to 
          the overcharge, interest at the rate payable on a judgment pursuant 
          to section 5004 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules from the 
          issuance date of the Rent Administrator's Order to the issuance date 
          of the Commissioner's Order.












          HK410017RP



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

               ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and 
          the same hereby is, denied, and, that the order of the Rent 
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, 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