ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BH 130058 RT
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. BH 130058 RT
: D.R.O. DOCKET NO.
AE 110008-OM
ANA KRANTZ,
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 25, 1987, the above-referenced tenant filed a
Petition for Administrative Review of an order issued on August
12, 1987, by the Rent Administrator in Jamaica, New York,
concerning the housing accommodation known as apartment 1A t 40-
40 100th Street, Corona, New York, in which the Administrator had
granted the owner's "Application for Rent Increase Based on
...Substantial Rehabilitation [or] Capital Improvements".
This proceeding was commenced when the owner filed that
application on May 8, 1986. The ensuing order, here appealed,
stated that despite having been notified of the application and
invited to respond thereto, no tenant had done so, and determined
that the installations in question constituted major capital
improvements for which, effective July 1, 1987, the owner could
collect an increase of 5.99 per centum from rent-stabilized
tenants along with a temporary (one-year) increase of an
additional 5.49 per cent.
The tenant's petition states that when the aforementioned
5.99% increase is added to an increase that the owner is said to
have imposed on December 1, 1986, it "would amount to a 19.7%
increase in less than one (1) year, which is outrageous."
After careful consideration of the record, the Commissioner
is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
Petitioner alleges no error in the amount of the increase
granted by the Administrator, and none is apparent. The objection
appears, rather, to be aimed at the conjunction of that increase
and an asserted 13.7% increase said to have been imposed late in
1986. The Commissioner cannot now comment on the propriety of any
such previous increase, nor on whether the owner is collecting, in
toto, a higher rent than the law allows; the tenant remains free
to raise such questions in a separate complaint of rent
overcharge. The present appeal requires only that the
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BH 130058 RT
Commissioner determine whether there is error in the order of
August 12, 1987, and based on the petition and the record herein,
the Commissioner has determined that there is not.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is denied,
and the decision of the Rent Administrator affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
