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. AL 210709-RO
                                         :  
                                            DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S 
        FISHER MANAGEMENT,                  DOCKET NO. K 3105539-R
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             


       ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN PART


     On December 10, 1986, the above named petitioner-owner  filed  a  petition
     for administrative review of an order issued on November  13,  1986  by  a
     District Rent Administrator, concerning housing  accommodations  known  as
     Apartment 6-D at 9480 Ridge Boulevard, Brooklyn,  New  York,  wherein  the
     Administrator determined that the tenants had been overcharged.

     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 commenced by the filing of a rent overcharge complaint 
     by the tenants.

     The tenants took occupancy pursuant to a  one  year  lease  commencing  on
     October 1, 1981, and expiring September 30, 1982  at  a  monthly  rent  of
     $600.  

     In its answer the owner attached lease agreements, starting with the prior 
     tenant, from December 30, 1966 through September 30, 1987.

     The owner asserted that the initial rent of $600 was derived by taking the 
     last rent of the prior tenant, which was $375.93, and  multiplying  it  by
     the allowable increases in the rent  guidelines.   Pursuant  to  guideline
     number 13, the owner increased the rent by 10%, since it was  a  one  year
     lease, plus 15% for a vacancy increase.  The owner increased the  rent  to
     $600, claiming new equipment was added to the apartment, including, a  new
     refrigerator, stove and  dishwasher,  kitchen  cabinets,  inlays,  blinds,
     overhead fixtures, bathroom sink, and air conditioners.

     In the order reviewed herein, the Administrator found  that  there  was  a
     rent overcharge, and directed the owner to  roll  back  the  rent  to  the
     lawful stabilized amount.  Based on the bills  submitted  in  the  owner's
     answer, the Administrator found that the owner installed  $4,093.63  worth
     of new equipment.  Pursuant to Section 20C(1)  of  the  former  Code,  the
     owner is entitled to increase the rent by 1/40 of the total cost for the 








          DOCKET NUMBER: AL 210709-RO
     installation of new equipment, which is an additional $102.34 per month in 
     rent.  The increase in rent did not include the inlay, ruling that it  was
     not new equipment but was work constituting normal repair and maintenance. 
     The Administrator found total overcharges of $2,204.55,  including  excess
     security and accrued interest from April 1, 1984.

     In  its  petition  the  owner  contends  that  the  Administrator's   rent
     calculations were faulty.  The petitioner correctly states that the lawful 
     stabilized rent for the lease commencing  on  January,  1979  is  $375.93.
     However,  the  Administrator  determined   the   lawful   rent   for   the
     abovementioned time period to be $372.47.  This figure was  then  used  to
     determine future rent increases based upon the rent guidelines.  

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that this error should be corrected.

     The petition also claims that the cost of the inlay should have been added 
     to the cost of new equipment.  The Commissioner is  of  the  opinion  that
     such work constitutes normal, ordinary maintenance or repair.   Therefore,
     it is improper to grant a rent  increase  in  this  case.   It  is  noted,
     moreover, that the record before the District Rent Administrator  did  not
     contain any bills for the inlay.  Accordingly  it  was  not  substantiated
     that such work was performed and a rent increase would not be warranted in 
     any case.

     The pertinent calculations are set forth on the attached Rent  Calculation
     Chart, which is fully a part of this order  and  opinion.   The  owner  is
     cautioned that rents for periods subsequent to September 30,  1986  should
     be based upon the amount of $670.40 for the lease  period  of  October  1,
     1985 through September 30, 1987 as indicated on the chart,  and  that  any
     demand for and collection of an amount in excess of the lawful amount  may
     give rise to a new overcharge complaint, in which treble  damages  may  be
     awarded if warranted.

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

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted  in  part;
     and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby  is,  modified,
     as described hereinabove and as appears on the  annexed  Rent  Calculation
     Chart, which is hereby made fully a part of this order and opinion; and it 
     is

     FURTHER ORDERED, that the owner Fisher Management shall immediately refund 
     to the tenants all amounts  not  yet  refunded  representing  overcharges,
     interest and excess security; and it is

     FURTHER ORDERED, that if the owner Fisher Management has not refunded  the
     stated amounts  as  of  the  expiration  of  the  time  for  commencing  a
     proceeding under Article 78 of  the  Civil  Practice  Law  and  Rules  for
     judicial review of this order, the tenants Mike  and  Sharon  Raguso,  may
     recover such amounts by deducting them from the rent due to the owner at a 
     rate not in excess of twenty percent of the amount to be refunded for  any
     one month's rent.  If, after such period, the owner has refunded  no  such
     amounts and the tenants have not made any such deductions from their  rent
     as an offset, then the  tenants  Mike  and  Sharon  Raguso  may  file  and
     enforce a certified copy of this order as a judgment  for  the  amount  of
     $1,907.18 against Fisher Management; and it is






          DOCKET NUMBER: AL 210709-RO
     FURTHER ORDERED, that if the owner has complied with  the  Administrator's
     order regarding the rent for the period commencing October 1,  1986,  and,
     as a result of the instant determination, there are  arrears  due  to  the
     owner from the tenant, the tenant may pay off the  arrears  in  six  equal
     monthly installments during the next six months.  Should the tenant vacate 
     after the issuance of this order, all arrears are due immediately.

     ISSUED:










                                                                 
                                              ELLIOT SANDER
                                            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