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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER LC 000721-OI
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 16, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed an
Administrative Appeal against an order issued on March 19, 1987,
by the District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,
Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as
129 West 89th Street, Apartment 67, New York, New York.
The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator
properly granted the owner a $2.00 per month rent increase for
the installation of an air-conditioner, effective on the first
rent payment day after the issuance of said order.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner alleged that the District Rent
Administrator erred by granting a $2.00 per month rent increase
effective the first rent payment day after issuance of said order
and that the grant should have been made effective as of the date
of the air-conditioner's installation.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The record reveals that the District Rent Administrator's order
was issued on March 19, 1987 and made effective the first rent
payment day after issuance of the order; to wit, April 1, 1987.
It is the owner's contention that the $2.00 per month increase in
rent should have been collectible from t e date the air-condi-
tioner was installed; namely, from July 19, 1985.
By simple calculation, the owner is claiming payment from the
tenant at the rate of $2.00 per month from August 1, 1985 to
April 1, 1987 or for 19 full months.
However, the tenant's answer to the petition, filed on June 17,
1987, clearly stated that he had consented to the owner's $2.00
per month increase in rent in July, 1985 and that he has been
paying the increase ever since without contesting the date of the
It is noteworthy that the owner never replied to the tenant's
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that there is no apparent
issue raised by the petition because the tenant has apparently
been paying the $2.00 per month increase in rent effective from
the date of installation and not from the first rent payment date
after the issuance of the District Rent Administrator's order.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulation for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA