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. BG 610299 RO
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
BN Realty Assoc., DOCKET NO. TC 082520 G
TENANT: L. Rosenberg
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 15, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order issued on June 12, 1987,
by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York,
concerning the housing accommodations known as 3611 Henry Hudson
Parkway, Bronx, New York, Apartment No. 8L, wherein the Rent
Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the tenant.
The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was initiated prior to
April 1, 1984. Sections 2526.1(a)(4) and 2521.d of the Rent
Stabilization Code (effective May 1, 1987) governing rent
overcharge and fair market rent proceeidngs 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 Section 20 C(1) 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)
showing the cost and date of installation. The owner did not
submit any proof of the cost of new equipment.
In the order under appeal herein, the Rent Administrator
established the legal regulated rent; did not grant a rent increase
for any new equipment; and determined a rent overcharge.
In its petition, the owner claims in substance that the Rent
Administrator should have granted a rent increase of 1/40th of
$818.80 and 1/40th of $446.00 for new equipment effective February
1, 1978 and July 1, 1979 respectively.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
Section 20 C(1) 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 alleged new equipment because it did not submit
the required proof of this installation.
Further, the owner failed to provide documentation of the cost of
the new equipment or the consent of the tenants in occupancy in
February 1978 to the increase with its petition.
Because this determination concerns lawful rents only through
June 30, 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 in the same
manner as a judgment or not in excess of twenty percent per month
thereof 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, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner