Docket No. BL220022RT
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.: BL220022RT
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
Stanley Kudelski NO.: BG220025OI
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations know as 185 Engert Avenue, Apartment 3R, Brooklyn,
New York.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to
the issues raised by the petition.
The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an Application
for Rent Increase, based upon the installation of 3 new aluminum
windows in the subject premises. In her Application, the owner
stated that she was undertaking the installation in response to the
tenant's request. She gave the total price of the installation as
$570, and stated that the work had been done during June, 1987.
Accompanying documentation supported the above contentions. She
requested a $14.25 per month rent increase in consideration of her
expenditures for the installation. The tenant had signed the
Application.
The Administrator approved the owner's Application, granting
the requested rent increase.
In his petition the tenant variously contends that he signed
the Application "inadvertently" and "under misrepresentation". In
support of this allegation the tenant states on appeal that the
owner told him "unless I signed, the windows would not be
replaced." The tenant also contends that the rent increase is
excessive and that the new windows were a necessary replacement .
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
Docket No. BL220022RT
denied.
As for tenant's contention on appeal that the rent increase is
excessive: The Commissioner is of the opinion that the rent
increase asked for by the owner and granted by the Administrator
($14.25/month) is reasonable considering the owner's expenditures
for the purchase and installation of 3 new aluminum windows
($570), the increase being one-fortieth of the proven expense.
As for tenant's contentions on appeal that he signed the
Application "inadvertently" and "under misrepresentation", and
tenant's contention upon appeal that, inasmuch as the installation
represented a necessary replacement the owner should not be allowed
a rent increase:
An examination of the record reveals that, on appeal the tenant
has submitted a copy of the Application . Unlike the Application
submitted by the owner below this copy does not bear the amount of
the owner's expenditure ($570) nor the monthly rent increase
requested ($14.25). As noted above, the tenant claims he signed
the blank Application under fraudulent misrepresentation. The
tenant also attaches to his appeal a copy of a complaint of
reductions in service he submitted to the Administrator on May 12,
1987 (prior to the commencement of the instant proceeding) under
docket #BE220214S, in which he complained inter alia of the prior
condition of the windows. The Commissioner notes that on December
4, 1987 (three days before the tenant's filing of the appeal under
review herein) the Administrator dismissed the tenant's service
complaint, due to a DHCR inspection report finding inter alia new
windows in good repair at the subject apartment. That
Administrator's order was not appealed.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenant's contention
on appeal that he signed the Application "inadvertently" is without
merit.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenant's contention
that he signed the Application "under misrepresentation" similarly
cannot stand. The application clearly states that it was for
windows and that a rent increase (albeit not specified) was
contemplated.
An examination of docket #BE220214S (described above) reveals
that in answer to the tenant's complaint of lack of services the
owner stated to the Administrator that she (the owner) would
replace the tenant's windows if the tenant signed the form allowing
her to raise rents in return for her installing new windows. The
Commissioner notes that this reply is dated June 9, 1987, as is the
Application. In her answer to the tenant's instant appeal the
owner asserts that the Application was blank (as to the price of
the installation and the amount of the resulting rent increase)
because the owner did not yet know the exact price of the
Docket No. BL220022RT
installation at the time the tenant signed.
The Commissioner notes that the tenant knowingly signed the
blank Application. The Commissioner further notes that the tenant
received a benefit from his signing of the Application, namely new
windows. The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenant's
signing of the Application indicates that the tenant wanted new
replacement windows (as opposed to merely repairing the windows
then in use).
Finally, the Commissioner notes that the tenant argued on
appeal that the tenant's consent was invalid because the
application form signed by the tenant states, in part, above the
blank for the tenant's signature:
"Tenant's Statement of Consent (only if item "a" is filled out
above)."
However, the Commissioner hereby finds that the clear purpose
of the parenthetical phrase is not to invalidate an otherwise valid
consent, but merely to indicate that tenant consent was not
required if the application was for item "b", a Major Capital
Improvement.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, 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.
ISSUED:
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
