Docket Number: BH 110232-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: BH 110232-RO 
             FON-MAY FAN                         D.R.O. DOCKET NO.: Q-001958-R
                              PETITIONER         Tenant: Florence Lynn


          On August 25,  1987,  the  above  named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative  Review  against  an  order  issued  on
          August 5, 1987, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza,  Jamaica,
          New York, concerning housing accommodations known as apartment  1-K
          at 216-10 77th Avenue, Bayside, New York, wherein the Administrator 
          established the stabilized rent and directed the  owner  to  refund
          $1,986.99, including interest from April 1, 1984.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised in the administrative appeal.

          This proceeding was originally commenced on August 25, 1985 by  the
          filing of a complaint of rent overcharge by the tenant.  The tenant 
          alleged that she had first taken occupancy under a one  year  lease
          (February 1, 1985 to January 31,  1986)  at  a  monthly  rental  of

          The  owner  submitted  an  answer  to  the  complaint  including  a
          description of the rental history from  April  1,  1984,  proof  of
          service of the initial registration  statement  on  the  tenant  in
          occupancy on  April  1,  1984  and  an  invoice  from  Kapic  Bros.
          Construction Co.,  Inc.  and  a  cancelled  check  indicating  that
          certain work (that is, "repair floor and bathroom.  Change  to  new
          window") had been done in the subject apartment on March 4, 1985 at 
          a cost of $800.00.

          On the chart attached  to  and  made  a  part  of  the  order,  the
          Administrator established the stabilized rent.

          In its Petition, the owner contends that the Administrator erred on 
          the rent calculation chart attached to the order.  The owner states 
          that it was entitled to  a  vacancy  allowance  of  7.5%  with  the
          tenant's initial lease and that it should have been credited with a 
          rent increase thereunder based on improvements  costing  $1,348.80.
          The owner further alleges that if  it  had  been  so  credited,  no
          overcharges would have been found.  With  the  Petition  the  owner
          submits an invoice from Stephen Thorpe, Inc. "Plumbing and Heating" 
          for $609.49, and a cancelled check for that  sum.   Also  submitted
          is a work proposal from Kapic Bros. Construction  Co.,  Inc.  dated
          January 3, 1985.  It indicates that repair of wood  floors  in  the

          Docket Number: BH 110232-RO

          bedroom and living room  and  installation  of  new  tiles  in  the
          bathroom were proposed to be done at a cost  of  $800.00.   Further
          submitted were a copy of the same Kapic Bros. invoice and cancelled 
          checks submitted below and described hereinabove.

          The tenant's answer opposing the Petition, in substance, asks  that
          the order of the Rent  Administrator  be  affirmed,  and  that  the
          Petition be denied.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion  that  the  Petition  should  be

          The Commissioner finds that under Guidelines Order  #16,  an  owner
          was not entitled to a vacancy allowance if the total resulting rent 
          for a one year lease exceeded $283.75.  Therefore, since the  legal
          rent determined by the Administrator for the tenant's vacancy lease 
          was $437.80, the Administrator properly denied the owner  a  credit
          for a 7.5% vacancy allowance.  The Commissioner further finds  that
          the Stephen Thorpe invoice was submitted  for  the  first  time  on
          appeal and therefore is not within the scope of review  on  appeal.
          The Commissioner further notes that,  even  if  said  invoice  were
          within the scope of review, no increase would be  credited  to  the
          owner based thereon since the work described in said  invoice  was,
          clearly, repair work.  As to the Kapic Bros. work, the Commissioner 
          finds that the work proposal is submitted for  the  first  time  on
          appeal and it is, therefore, not within  the  scope  of  review  on
          appeal.  Moreover, were it within the scope of review, it would not 
          substantiate the owner's entitlement to a rent  increase  based  on
          improvements.  First, the proposal describes work which is  clearly
          repair work (the floor  repairs)  and  work  which  possibly  could
          constitute an improvement (the new tile work), but  the  costs  for
          each are not broken down.  Second, the  proposal,  as  a  probative
          document, would have to yield to the invoice, the former being,  at
          best, evidence of proposed action; the  latter  being  evidence  of
          what in fact was done.  The invoice states nothing about tile work, 
          describes repairs and  is  undecipherable  as  to  "change  to  new

          The Commissioner notes that the Division's  registration  data  for
          this apartment shows that as of July 20, 1989, the apartment became 
          exempt  from  regulation  as  a  New  York  City   cooperative   or
          condominium apartment.  Therefore, whether or not the apartment was 
          purchased by  the  subject  tenant,  as  to  this  proceeding,  the
          Commissioner finds that the tenant must be deemed to  have  vacated
          the apartment.


          Docket Number: BH 110232-RO

          The Commissioner notes that the Administrator's order may, upon the 
          expiration of the  period  in  which  the  owner  may  institute  a
          proceeding pursuant to Article Seventy-eight of the Civil  Practice
          Law and Rules, be filed and enforced by  the  tenant  in  the  same
          manner as a judgment.

          THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same hereby is, denied. 


                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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