STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. ARL10954-K
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
Deana Realty, DOCKET NO. K3703099-R
TENANT: Hyman Goldstein
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 5, 1992 this Order and Opinion was originally issued, but
was inadvertently mailed to the owner at an incorrect address. This
order is the same as that issued on November 5, 1992 and is being
reissued solely to serve the owner with the order at the proper address.
On June 13, 1986, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on June 11, 1986, by the
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as
3033 Brighton 14th Street, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. B-7,
wherein the Administrator established the stabilized rent and directed
the owner to refund $712.84 including interest from April 1, 1984.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the evidence relevant to the issue
raised by the administrative appeal.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on March 31, 1984, by the filing of
a complaint of rent overcharge with the New York City Conciliation and
Appeals Board, one of the predecessor agencies to the DHCR. The tenant
took occupancy pursuant to a lease commencing April 1, 1979 and expiring
on March 31, 1981, at a monthly rental of $250.00.
The owner submitted a rental history from the base date.
On the chart attached to and made a part of the order, the Administrator
established the stabilized rent.
In its petition, the owner contends that the Administrator erred in its
rent calculations by failing to credit the owner with a rent increase
based on the cost of a Major Capital Improvement (MCI), i.e., the re-
tiling of all of the showers throughout the building.
The tenant's answer opposing the petition asks that the order of the
Rent Administrator be affirmed, and that the petition be denied.
Division records confirm that no application for rent increase for major
capital improvement was filed by the owner prior to the issuance of the
instant Rent Administrator's order.
The Commissioner finds that the owner cannot be granted an MCI increase
where the application for said increase consists solely of the owner's
PAR against an order that found that an overcharge had been collected.
The Commissioner, therefore, finds that the owner has asserted no basis
upon which the revocation or modification of the appealed order might be
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
The owner is directed to refund the overcharge to the tenant
immediately. Should the owner fail to do so, upon the expiration of the
period in which the owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Article
Seventy-Eight of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, not in excess of
twenty per cent thereof per month of the amount owed by the owner may be
offset against any rent thereafter due the owner. The tenant may add to
the overcharge interest at the rate payable on a judgment pursuant to
Section 5004 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules rom the issuance date
of the Rent Administrator's order to the issuance date of the
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same hereby is, denied.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA