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  






    

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