AL 110753 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 ADMINIST5ATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.:
APPEAL OF AL 110753-RO
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
YELLOW MANOR REALTY CO., DOCKET NOS.:
Q-3121047-R
PETITIONER CDR 27,794
----------------------------------x TENANT: LILLY MORPURGO
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 24, 1986 the above-named petitioner-owner, filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued November 20, 1986. The order concerned
housing accommodations known as Apartment 509 located at 68-61
Yellowstone Blvd., Forest Hills, New York. The Administrator
determined that the tenant had been overcharged and directed the
owner to refund $1,543.46 including interest on overcharges
collected on or after April 1, 1984.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully considered
that portion relevant to the issues raised by this appeal.
The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a complaint of
rent overcharge on March 20, 1984, in which she indicated that
she moved into the subject apartment on June 15, 1979 pursuant to
a two-year lease at a rental of $240.58 per month. She requested
a full rental history to the base date. In response, the owner
submitted to the Administrator, a complete set of leases dating
from August 15, 1968.
The Administrator, in calculating the legal regulated rent for
the apartment noted that the owner had submitted paid bills for
the following improvements:
Stove $172.26 Dated May 4, 1979
Floor re-finishing $432.00 Dated July 14, 1981
The Administrator ruled, in accordance with the Division of
Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) polic , that floor refin-
ishing does not constitute "installation of new equipment."
Pursuant to Section 20(C)1 of the former Code 1/40th of the
proven cost of the stove ($4.31) was added to the tenant's ini-
tial rent. The Administrator calculated a total overcharge of
$1,563.09 through June 1, 1986.
On appeal the owner states in part as follows: "Landlord re-
AL 110753 RO
ceived an incomplete rent administrative order CDR 26,794 which
did not show how the DHCR calculated the rents for this apart-
ment." Apparently the petitioner never was sent the Adminis-
trator's computerized rent calculation charts. Accordingly, the
Commissioner served petitioner with copies of the Administrator's
rent calculations. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to
respond. No response was received.
After careful consideration of the evidence in the record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
denied.
The Commissioner has reviewed the Administrator s rent calcula-
tions and finds them to be correct. Petitioner has put forth no
valid grounds for reversal although afforded an opportunity to
do so.
This order may be docketed and enforced in the same manner as a
judgement of the Supreme Court.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
