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.:CA 110251-RO
                                          :  
        PERRY FINKELMAN                      RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
        GMK REALTY,                          DOCKET NO.:ZAD 110102-R
                            PETITIONER    : 
      ------------------------------------X  TENANT: SAM & ALLA SMOLYAR 

            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

      On January 28, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for 
      Administrative Review against an order issued on December 28, 1987, by the 
      Rent Administrator, Gertz Plaza 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, 
      concerning the housing accommodations known as 144-80 Sanford Avenue 
      Queens, New York, Apartment No. 2M, wherein the Rent Administrator 
      Determined that the owner had overcharged the tenant.

      The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the provisions of 
      Section 2526.1 of the 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 in April, 1986 by the filing of a 
      rent overcharge complaint by the tenant.  In answer to the complaint, the 
      owner submitted a complete rental history for the subject apartment.

      In addition, the owner submitted paid invoices for new equipment installed 
      in the subject apartment prior to the tenants occupancy but failed to 
      submit cancelled checks.

      In Order Number 
      AD 110102-R, the Rent Administrator determined that the tenant had been 
      overcharged in the amount of $1870.84, and directed the owner to refund 
      such overcharge to the tenant.

      In this petition, the owner contends in substance that there is no rent 
      overcharge in that the Rent Administrator failed to consider the paid 
      invoices submitted substantiate improvements to the apartment prior to the  
      occupancy of the complaints.  The owner submitted copies of cancelled 
      checks for the improvements as additional proof.

      In answer to the owner's petition, the tenant contends in substance that 
      they did not request or want new equipment, the windows should be a 
      building wide increase and questioned why the cancelled checks were not 
      submitted earlier.








          DOCKET NUMBER: CA 110251-RO
      The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be granted.

      An examination of the records in this case discloses that the owner is 
      correct in its contention that the Rent Administrator failed to grant an 
      increase to the rent Administrator for new equipment pursuant to Section 
      2522222.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.     Pursuant to DHCR policy 
      statement 9--10 the paid invoices submitted by the owner to the Rent 
      Administrator constitute adequate proof of the cost of the new equipment 
      and should have been considered.

      With regard to the tenant's contentions that they did not request or 
      consent to an increase for the new equipment, it is noted that Section 
      2522.4(a)(4) of the Code does not require the owner to secure the tenant's 
      consent for installation of new equipment during a period of vacancy.  The 
      new equipment herein was installed during such a vacancy period.

      Further, the Commissioner rejects the tenants' objection to the increase 
      for new windows because it is a building wide improvement which should be 
      considered as a major capital improvement (MCI) hereafter.

      A review of the agency records reveals that the owner has not filed an 
      application for a MCI increase based on the installation of new windows.  
      The owner has documented the cost of the windows in the subject apartment 
      and the tenant does not dispute the actual installation of same.  Therefore 
      an increase of 1/40 of the pro rated cost of the windows is warranted.

      Taking the aforementioned factors in to account the Commissioner has 
      determined that the following increases pursuant to Section 2522.4(a)(1) be 
      included in the tenant's vacancy lease rent:

                $ 18.13 =    1/40 of the total cost of $ 725.28 for
                             a new store and refrigerator

                $ 17.59      1/40 of the total cost of $ 703.63
                             for 2 bathroom vanities and a kitchen sink
                             and cabinet 

                $ 33.09      (partial increase)  = 1/40 of $ 1705.00
                             for 11 new windows at  a cost of $155.00 each
                             such inclusion calculates the tenant's lawful 
                             initial rent $ 519.54 as charged by the owner.

      Accordingly, there was no rent overcharge.

      If the owner has already complied with the Rent Administrator's order and 
      there are arrears due to the owner as a result of the instant 
      determination, the tenant is u to pay off the arrears in 24 equal monthly 
      installments.  Should the tenant vacate after the issuance of this order or 
      have already vacated, said arrears shall be payable immediately.

      THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law 
      and Code, it is








          DOCKET NUMBER: CA 110251-RO
      ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and the same 
      hereby is, granted, that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the 
      same hereby is, revoked, and it is found that no rent overcharge occurred.

      ISSUED:
                                                                    
                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       Acting 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