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. BG 410183 RO
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO. TC-050275-G
               CAMPEC REALTY CORP.               TENANT: MAUREEN PASKU

                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X 

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND 
          MODIFYING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER


               On July 27, 1987, the above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on July 
          3, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New  York,
          New York, concerning the  housing  accommodations  known  as  1431
          First Avenue, New York, New York, Apartment No. 5FN,  wherein  the
          Rent Administrator determined that the owner had  overcharged  the
          tenant. 

               The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was  filed  prior
          to April 1, 1984.  Sections 2526.1 (a) (4)  and 2521.1 (d) of  the
          Rent Stabilization Code (effective May  1,  1987)  governing  rent
          overcharge  and  fair  market  rent   proceedings   provide   that
          determination of these matters be  based  upon  the  law  or  code
          provisions  in  effect  on  March  31,  1984.   Therefore,  unless
          otherwise  indicated,  reference   to   Sections   of   the   Rent
          Stabilization Code (Code) contained herein  are  to  the  Code  in
          effect on April 30, 1987.

               The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions  of  Sections  20C(1)  and  42A  of  the  former   Rent
          Stabilization Code. 

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

               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.  

               This proceeding was originally commenced  by  the  filing  in
          February 1981 of a rent overcharge complaint  by  the  tenant  who
          first moved to the subject studio apartment on July 15, 1978 at  a
          rental of $275.00 per month.

               The owner was served with a copy of  the  complaint  and  was
          directed to submit a  complete  rental  history  for  the  subject
          apartment from the base date including copies of all leases.
          BG 410183 RO









               In response, the owner submitted leases from October 1,  1973
          up through occupancy by the tenant herein except  that  the  owner
          omitted a claimed lease from December 1975 through  November  1977
          at a  claimed  rental  of  $225.00  per  month.   The  owner  also
          submitted copies of bills and invoices  for  alleged  improvements
          and repairs made in the subject apartment from 1973 through 1979.

               On  June  9,  1987,  the  DHCR  sent  the  owner   a   notice
          specifically requesting leases documenting the tenancies  for  the
          subject apartment from October 1, 1975 through December  1,  1977.
          In a response dated June 10, 1987, sent by certified  mail  number
          P282274376, the owner stated that it  was  enclosing  the  1975-77
          lease.  However attached to the June 10, 1987 response was a  copy
          of a lease commencing December 1, 1977.

               In Order Number CDR 30,787, the Rent Administrator determined 
          that due to the  owner's  failure  to  submit  a  complete  rental
          history, the default method would be used to establish an  initial
          legal regulated rent of $251.14 for  the  tenant  herein,  further
          determined that the tenant had been overcharged in the  amount  of
          $1462.28 through July 14, 1987, and directed the owner  to  refund
          the overcharge to the tenant.  In such order, it was  also  stated
          that the owner was permitted to  increase  the  tenant's  rent  by
          $155.59  (1/40th  of  a  total  cost  of  $6223.51)  due  to   the
          installation of improvements in the subject  apartment.   However,
          in the rent calculation chart which determined the amount  of  the
          rent overcharge, the owner was  only  allowed  rent  increases  of
          $7.84 and $1.92 for the installation of new equipment.

               In this petition, the owner  alleges  in  substance  that  it
          should not have been defaulted since it submitted a rental history 
          back to October 1,  1973,  that  it  did  submit  a  copy  of  the
          December 1975 through NOvember 1977 lease and that with  the  rent
          increases for new equipment, no rent overcharge occurred.  A  copy
          of the aforementioned lease was not  submitted  with  the  owner's
          petition.

               In response to the owner's petition, the tenant contended  in
          substance that the  Rent  Administrator's  order  finding  a  rent
          overcharge is warranted except that no rent increase is  warranted
          for any improvements since such  improvements,  if  any,  occurred
          long prior to her tenancy, or  were  in  the  nature  of  ordinary
          repairs and maintenance and that she did not consent to  any  rent
          increase for improvements.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should
          be denied and  that  the  Rent  Administrator's  order  should  be
          modified.

               Section 42A of the former Rent  STabilization  Code  requires
          that  an  owner  retain  complete  records  for  each   stabilized
          apartment in effect from June 30, 1974 to date and produce them to 
          the DHCR upon demand.  If the apartment was decontrolled from  the
          Rent Control Law after June  30,  1974,  the  owner  must  provide
          BG 410183 RO









          satisfactory documentary  evidence  of  the  apartment's  date  of
          decontrol.

               Section 20C(1) of the former Rent Stabilization Code provides 
          in pertinent part that due to the installation of new equipment or 
          improvements  in  a  particular   dwelling   unit,   the   monthly
          stabilization rent shall be increased by 1/40th of the total  cost
          provided however that  such  increase  shall  not  be  collectible
          during the term of a lease then in effect or any  renewal  thereof
          except upon written consent of the tenant.

               In the instant case, the improvements and repairs alleged  by
          the owner consist of the following:

          DATE                ITEM                          COST
          7-20-73             air conditioner               $470.69
          7-20-73             carpet                        $236.47
          2-28-74             shades                        $ 55.37
          10-11-74            paint                         $ 40.44
          10-15-74            panelling                     $ 51.70
          10-30-74            door                          $166.60
          10-31-74            plumbing                      $ 54.54
          12-9-74             install door                  $175.00
          12-21-74            kitchen cabinets              $300.24
          12-21-74            stove                         $141.00
          1-75                air cond. hole,               $575.00
                              install cabinets and
                              bathroom tile
          7-8-75              kitchen fixture               $ 25.90
          3-18-76             electric meters               $266.67
          11-16-76            repairs                       $ 12.00
          11-28-76            repairs                       $ 45.60
          10-24-77            intercom system & bells       $266.67
          6-28-78             linoleum                      $160.38
          6-30-79             paint and supplies            $129.84
          8-7-79              air conditioner               $365.35
          9-10-79             stove                         $167.40
                              labor for painting, general   $576.00
                              repairs

               The Commissioner is of the opinion and finds that many of the 
          above items such  as  painting,  plumbing,  repairs  and  linoleum
          consist of ordinary maintenance  and  repair  work  for  which  no
          Section 20C(1) increase was warranted.  Further some items do  not
          specifically designate the subject apartment and  the  tenant  has
          denied ever receiving the 8-7-79 air conditioner  (cost  $365.35).
          Moreover, after examining the lease information submitted  by  the
          owner, it does not appear that any of  the  items  were  installed
          during a vacancy period and  the  owner  has  not  shown  that  it
          received the consent of any of the tenants in occupancy for any of 
          these installations.  Finally, the first two items were  installed
          prior to the base date lease commencing October 1, 1973  and  must
          be considered to have been included in the base  date  rent.   For
          the foregoing reasons, the owner is not entitled  to  any  Section
          BG 410183 RO



          20C(1) rent increase and the Rent Administrator's order is  hereby
          modified to delete the finding that  the  owner  was  entitled  to






          increase the tenant's rent by $155.59 pursuant to Section  20C(1).
          it is noted that such finding was never  actually  implemented  in
          the  rent  calculation  chart  determining  the  rent  overcharge.
          Regarding the Section 20C(1) rent increases  of  $7.84  and  $1.92
          included in the rent calculation chart,  such  increases  will  be
          allowed to remain since the tenant did not file her  own  petition
          against the amount  of  the  overcharge  determined  by  the  Rent
          Administrator.

               With regard to the owner's contention that it should not have 
          been defaulted in that it did submit a complete rental history, it 
          is noted that contrary to the owner's  allegation  on  appeal,  it
          never submitted the December 1975 lease  requested  by  the  DHCR.
          However, even if such alleged lease was  accepted  and  the  owner
          were not defaulted, the resulting rent overcharge would be  larger
          than that found by the default method since  the  owner's  request
          for Section 20C(1) rent increases is disallowed.  In  the  absence
          of a timely petition for administrative review by the tenant,  the
          Commissioner deems it appropriate to deny the owner's petition and 
          affirm the  amount  of  the  overcharge  determined  by  the  Rent
          Administrator.

               Because this determination concerns lawful rents only through 
          July 14, 1987, the owner is cautioned to adjust  subsequent  rents
          to  an  amount  no  greater  than  that  determined  by  the  Rent
          Administrator's order plus any lawful increases  and  to  register
          any adjusted rents with this order and opinion being given as  the
          explanation for the adjustment.

               This order may upon the expiration of the period in which the 
          owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to  Article  78  of  the
          Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and enforced as a  judgment
          or not in excess of twenty percent per month of the overcharge may 
          be offset against any rent thereafter due the owner.

               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, modified  in  accordance
          with this order and opinion.  The amount of  the  rent  overcharge
          through July 14, 1987 is $1,462.38. 

          ISSUED



                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner


                            ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BUREAU
                                 COVERING MEMORANDUM




          ARB Docket No.: BG 410183 RO







          DRO Docket No/Order No.: TC-050275-G

          Tenant(s): Maureen Pasku

          Owner: Campec Realty Corp.

          Code Section: 20C(1) and 42A of former RSC

          Premises: 1431 First Avenue, New York, New York, Apt. 5FN

          Order  and  Opinion   Denying   Petition   and   Modifying   Order
                           
               Petition denied  on  basis  amount  of  rent  overcharge  was
          correctly determined.  Order modified to delete finding that owner 
          was entitled to Section 20C(1)  rent  increase  of  $155.59  which
          increase  was  in  fact  not  included  in  calculation  of   rent
          overcharge.









          APPROVED:



          Processing Attorney:                                             

          Supervising Attorney:                                            

          Director: 
              
          Deputy Commissioner:                                             

          Mailed copies of Order and Determination to:
                           Tenant(s)                 
                           Owner                     
                           Tenant's Atty             
                           Owner's Atty              


                           Date:              :  by               
                                                    signature
                    



                                      

                                                    
          ```````````````




































    

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