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

          APPEAL OF                            :  DOCKET NUMBER: ARL-10432-Q
             THE ARGO CORPORATION,             :  D.R.O. DOCKET NO. CDR 15,905
                                               :  TENANT - TANIA KOVACS
                                   PETITIONER  :

                              FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On May 22, 1986 the above-named petitioner filed a  Petition  for
          Administrative Review against an order  issued  on  May  5,  1986
          by the District Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, 
          New York, concerning housing accommodations known as 
          Apartment 3-N, 65-65  Wetherole  Street,  Rego  Park,  New  York,
          wherein the Administrator directed the owner  to  roll  back  the
          rent and to refund overcharges in the amount of $882.11.

          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.

          The tenant initiated this proceeding on March 23, 1984 by  filing
          a  complaint  of  rent  overcharge  with  the   New   York   City
          Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB) alleging that the owner  had
          not provided a lease history.

          On November 4, 1984, a copy of the complaint was  served  on  the

          In  response  the  owner  submitted  a  complete  rental  history
          including a set of leases from the base date.   In  the  tenant's
          initial lease was a tenant-signed notation that the rent included 
          an $8.00 charge for a new refrigerator and a new stove

          In response to a Division request for a copy of the bill for  the
          refrigerator and stove, the owner  asserted that it had not owned 
          the property prior to 1982 and that it was unable to  obtain  the
          bill from the prior owner.

          In the order here under review, the Administrator determined that 
          the owner was not permitted to increase the monthly rent for  the
          unsubstantiated cost of a new refrigerator and a new  stove,  and
          further determined that the owner had  collected  an  over-charge

          DOCKET NUMBER: ARL-10432-Q
          since 1975.  The  Administrator  directed  the  owner  to  refund
          overcharges of $882.11 inclusive of interest on  the  overcharges
          collected on or after April 1, 1984.

          In the appeal, the owner states that since it did  not  take   title
          to the subject premises until January 1982, it  is  not  responsible
          for overcharges collected before that  time.   Moreover,  the  owner
          contends that the  Administrator  ignored  the   evidence  submitted
          which indicated that the tenant knew and consented to the additional 
          charges for the refrigerator and stove.

          The tenant replied that the overcharge finding should be upheld.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion  that  this  petition  should  be
          granted in part.

          Code Section 2522.4 provides in pertinent part for a  rent  increase
          where there has been an installation of new equipment.   The  amount
          of the increase permitted is dependent on the  actual  cost  of  the
          installation.  Accordingly, the Division  requires  proof,  such  as
          paid  invoices  or  cancelled  checks,   of   the   cost   of   such
          installations.   The  tenant's  consent  to  the  charge  does   not
          adequately  meet  this  requirement.  Therefore  the   administrator
          properly did not include the charge in the legal stabilized rent.

          Code Section 2526.1(f)(1) provides that for complaints  filed  prior
          to April 1, 1984 an owner will be held responsible only for  his  or
          her portion of overcharges collected prior to April 1, 1984  in  the
          absence of collusion or any  relationship  between  such  owner  and
          prior owners.  In the instant case, the owner took title in  January
          1982.   There  is  no  evidence  of  collusion  or  a  relationship.
          Therefore,  the  Commissioner  finds  that  the  current  owner   is
          responsible for all overcharges since January 1982 or $387.81.   The
          former owner, Forester Realty Company is responsible for overcharges 
          in the amount of $494.30.

          The tenant may credit no more than 20% of  the  overcharge  owed  by
          the current owner against the rent.  The tenant may seek to  recover
          the overcharges owed by the former owner in  a  court  of  competent

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

          ORDERED that the petition be and the  same  hereby  is,  granted  in
          part, and the Rent Administrator's order be,  and  the  same  hereby
          is, modified, in accordance with this order and opinion.


                                             ELLIOT SANDER
                                             Deputy Commissioner


                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BUREAU
                                                 COVERING MEMORANDUM

          ARB Docket No.:  ARL-10432-Q

          DRO Docket No/Order No.:  CDR 15,905

          Tenant(s): TANIA KOVACS

          Owner:   THE ARGO CORPORATION

          Code Section:  2522.4; 2526.1(f)(1)

          Premises:  65-65 WETHEROLE STREET, REGO PARK, NY, APARTMENT 3-N

                                FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The owner took title to the subject property in January  1982  and
          therefore is responsible only for overcharges collected since that 
          time.  The owner did not submit a paid bill or cancelled check for 
          the installation of new appliances and therefore cannot get a rent 
          increase based on the installation.


          Processing Attorney:                                             

          Supervising Attorney:                                            

          Bureau Chief:                                                    

          Deputy Counsel:                                                  

          Deputy Commissioner:                                             

          Mailed copies of Order and Determination to:
                         Tenant's Atty.       
                         Owner's Atty.        

          Date:                    : by                                   

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