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

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. BF110367RO

                                          :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
           Loumat Realty Co.,                DOCKET NO. 74103-G
                                             TENANT: David J. Rechtman        
                            PETITIONER    : 


      On June 29, 1987, the above-named owner filed a Petition for 
      Administrative Review against an order issued on June 2, 1987 by the 
      Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as       
      68-64 Yellowstone Blvd, Forest Hills, New York, Apartment No. A-44,
      wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged 
      the tenant.

      The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the provisions 
      of Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

      The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was 

      The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has 
      carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issue 
      raised by the administrative appeal.  

      The tenant originally commenced this proceeding by filing a complaint of 
      rent overcharge.  The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and 
      was directed to submit a complete rental history.  The owner was advised 
      that if it claimed a rent increase for the installation of new 
      equipment, it was required to submit invoice(s) substantiating the 
      installation of new equipment.  The owner submitted copies of invoices 
      and cancelled checks as proof for the installation of certain new 
      equipment, except that one purported invoice showing an amount of 
      $140.00 did not specify the nature of the installation.

      In Order No. 74103-G, the Rent Administrator established the lawful 
      stabilization rent which was based, in part, on the owner's cost for 
      certain new equipment, except for the owner's purported expenditure in 
      the amount of $140.00 which the Administrator deemed unsubstantiated.

      In this petition, the owner requests reversal of the Rent 
      Administrator's order.  The owner stated that it had previously 


      submitted copies of bills for new equipment.  With its petition, the 
      owner re-submitted copies of invoices and cancelled checks, including 
      one purported invoice in the amount of $140.00 which, as in the 
      proceeding before the Rent Administrator, did not specify the nature of 
      the installation.

      The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

      Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code permits a rent increase 
      equal to one-fortieth the cost of new equipment.  The Commissioner finds 
      that the owner is not entitled to a rent increase for the owner's 
      purported expenditure of $140.00 for new equipment since an invoice 
      indicating the nature of such new equipment had not been submitted in 
      the proceeding before the Rent Administrator.

      The Commissioner notes that the owner is not absolved of its liability 
      as determined by the order of the Rent Administrator in the instance 
      that the complainant tenant had vacated the subject premises before the 
      issuance of this Order and Opinion.

      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 the Rent Administrator's 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 said order.  The owner is further directed to 
      adjust subsequent rents to an amount no greater than that determined by 
      the Rent Administrator's order plus any lawful increases. 

      The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that the owner 
      collected overcharges of $1,492.58.  This Order may, upon expiration of 
      the period for seeking review of this Order and Opinion pursuant to 
      Article Seventy-eight of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and 
      enforced as a judgment.  Where the tenant files this order as a 
      judgment, the County Clerk may add to the overcharge interest at the 
      rate payable on a judgment pursuant to section 5004 of the Civil 
      Practice Law and Rules, from the issuance date of the Rent 
      Administrator's order to the issuance date of the Commissioner's Order.  
      A copy of this order is being sent to the current occupant of the 
      subject apartment.

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

      ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and the same 
      hereby is, denied, and, that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and 
      the same hereby is, affirmed.


                                      JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      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