AJ 510079 RT

                                  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
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. AJ 510079 RT

               Claudette Lockner,             :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
                                                 DOCKET NO. L-004096 R
                             
                                   PETITIONER : 
          ------------------------------------X 

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On October 2, 1986, the  above-named  petitioner-tenant  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          September 15, 1986, by the Rent Administrator, Jamaica, New York, 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 95 Seaman  Avenue,
          New York, New York, Apartment No. 2C, wherein  the  Administrator
          determined that the owner  had  overcharged  the  tenant  in  the
          amount of $237.66.

          The tenant had originated this proceeding by filing  a  complaint
          of rent overcharge in September 1985.  In the ensuing order, here 
          appealed, the Administrator found and concluded  inter  alia  (a)
          that the tenant had not filed a timely objection to the apartment 
          registration filed by the owner, so that the rent  registered  as
          of April 1, 1984, would be the "initial legal  registered  rent,"
          and (b) that the owner had installed  new  equipment  during  the
          vacancy preceding the tenant's occupancy, entitling the owner  to
          charge $8.05 more per  month   than  would  otherwise  have  been
          permitted.   In  her  appeal  of  the  aforementioned  overcharge
          determination, the tenant now attacks (a) and (b).

          The petition first states (with documentation)  that  the  tenant
          had written to the owner,



               a letter requesting information on why the rent  was  so
               high in 1984, at which point . . .  I  was  referred  to
               phone him, so he would not put anything in  writing  and
               try to stall me for time [so that  I  would  not  timely
               object to the registration statement].   I  was  set  up
               for this by him, as I am not from New York and  did  not
               know your procedure in New York at all.



          The owner responds  that  the  aforementioned  initial  rent  "is
          legally incontestable" in that it was set in  1983  by  the  City
          Department of Housing Preservation and  Development  pursuant  to
          that agency's authority over rehabilitated units.






          AJ 510079 RT

          Petitioner's objection to the  charge  for  additional  equipment
          states that the applicable lease entitled her  to  appliances  at
          the landlord's expense, that there was  no  refrigerator  in  the
          apartment when she moved in, and that although she had  requested
          no refrigerator (let alone a new one), the owner  had  chosen  to
          buy a new one and install it in the subject apartment.

          The  Commissioner,  having  carefully  considered  the   relevant
          portions of the  record  herein,  is  of  the  opinion  that  the
          petition should be denied.

          Petitioner has admitted to  being  served  with  a  copy  of  the
          apartment registration form in 1984, and does not deny failing to 
          object to the registered rent on a timely basis.  Rather she asks 
          the Commissioner to excuse that failure  because  after  she  had
          complained to the owner about the rent, the latter's agent  wrote
          back, asking  her  to  telephone.   Clearly  those  circumstances
          cannot lead to abrogation of this timely-objection rule, and  the
          Administrator's determination of the initial  legal  rental  will
          remain undisturbed.

          Turning to the other assignment of error, the  Commissioner  must
          point out that the tenant, by signing the lease, had agreed to  a
          particular  rental  amount,  which  included  a  charge  for  the
          refrigerator,  before  the  refrigerator  was   installed.    The
          evidence of  record,  including  a  copy  of  the  bill  for  the
          refrigerator, discloses that the refrigerator was ordered  during
          a vacancy period.  The tenant's consent for the installation  was
          therefore not required.  Thus the Administrator  was  correct  in
          granting the questioned increase.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same  hereby  is  denied,
          and that  the  Administrator's  order,  including  an  overcharge
          figure of $237.66 through September 30, 1986  be,  and  the  same
          hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:
                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting Deputy Commissioner




                     
















          AJ 510079 RT