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. BF110367RO
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
Loumat Realty Co., DOCKET NO. 74103-G
TENANT: David J. Rechtman
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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 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 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
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