DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, and CB 410099-RO
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 NOS. CB 410105-RT
and CB 410099-RO
PENELOPE JAY, PETITIONER-TENANT : D.R.O. ORDER NO.:
and CDR #32,319
SEYMOUR COHEN, PETITIONER-OWNER : D.R.O. DOCKET NO.:
------------------------------------X TC 63149-G
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING TENANT'S PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW, GRANTING OWNER'S PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN PART AND AMENDING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On February 18, 1988, the above named petitioner-tenant and the above
named petitioner-owner each filed a Petition for Administrative Review
against an order issued on January 14, 1988, by the Rent Administrator
at 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York concerning housing
accommodations known as apartment number 5A at 319 West 80th Street,
New York, New York, wherein the Administrator established the
stabilized rent and directed the owner to refund $3,690.13, including
interest from April 1, 1984. Pursuant to Section 2529.1(c) of the
Code, these petitions are consolidated
herein.
The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was initiated 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 Commissioner has reviewed all 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 in June of 1982, by the
filing of a complaint of rent overcharge with the New York City
Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB, the agency formerly charged
with enforcing the Rent Stabilization Law) by the tenant.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
The owner, submitted a rental history from the base date.
On the chart attached to and made a part of the order, the
Administrator established the stabilized rent.
In her Petition, the tenant contends that the Administrator erred in
the rent calculation chart attached to the order as follows:
1.The Administrator factored into his calculation
/the rent increase allegedly charged one Stephen
Sherman whom the tenant contends never resided at
the premises.
2.At page 4 of the chart the August 1, 1982 rent is
incorrectly stated as $469.78 whereas that same
rent was stated as $453.28 on page 3 of the chart.
In the owner's answer opposing the tenant's Petition, the owner
asserts that Stephen Sherman did take occupancy of the subject
apartment under a lease which commenced on September 1, 1980 but Mr.
Sherman abandoned the apartment by the end of October, 1980. The
owner also asserted that the Administrator's error in describing the
August 1, 1982 rent as $469.78 on page four of the chart was merely
a typographical error since the Administrator's calculations were in
fact based on the $453.28 figure.
In the owner's Petition, the owner contends that the Administrator
erred on the rent calculation chart attached to the order as
follows:
1.The chart did not credit the owner with the one
year lease term (of Patrick Robustelli that
commenced on May 1, 1975.) increase of 8 1/2% the
owner was entitled to over the June 30, 1974 rent.
2.The owner was not given credit, without any
explanation why, for the improvements to the
apartment effected during the vacancy that preceded
Robustelli's tenancy.
3.The first renewal lease term of the tenant Hanley
(September 1, 1977 - August 31, 1978) was
erroneously excluded from the chart.
4. The $9.05 increase for improvements added to
Hanley's second renewal lease should have been
added to the Baptiste lease. Hanley vacated in
October of 1978 and the improvements were installed
during the vacancy that intervened between October
of 1978 and the commencement of the Baptiste lease
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
term on September 1, 1979.
5.The owner was not credited with the $5.62 rent
increase the Administrator should have allowed for
improvements installed during the vacancy that
preceded the commencement of the Sherman lease term
on September 1, 1980.
6.the owner should have been credited with a $13.95*
rent increase on the complaining tenant's lease
based on the installation of furniture. The
apartment was rented (for the first time) as
furnished under the complaining tenant's vacancy
lease.
In the tenant's answer opposing the owner's Petition, the tenant
asserts that the tenant is entitled to a greater refund than that
specified in the order below; that the owner's receipts for the
alleged improvements (many of which do not specify the apartment
where the work was done and many of which are barely legible) do not
properly substantiate the owner's allegations that work was done
and/or the cost of that work; that 252 West 72nd Street in
Manhattan, the address on the billhead for B&C Enterprises (one of
the alleged contractors) appears to be a residential brownstone and
it has no sign to indicate that it is the location of a business;
that B&C Enterprises is not registered with the County Clerk's
office; and that there has been no proof that any of the bills were
paid. The tenant also asserts that none of the furnishings were
ever used by her [the tenant had alleged below that they were all
second hand] and she had to expend her own money to furnish the
apartment.
The tenant noted in her answer that the terms of her vacancy and
first renewal leases were incorrectly described in the chart below;
which described them as September 1, 1981 through August 31, 1982
and February 1, 1982 through August 31, 1983, respectively, whereas
they were in fact August 1, 1981 through July 31, 1982 and August 1,
1982 through July 31, 1983, respectively.
*Although the owner uses this figure of $13.95 in the body of the
Petition, in Exhibit D annexed to the petition, as well as in
documents submitted below, the owner claims a cost of $600.00 for
furniture and furnishings and, therefore, an increase of $15.00.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenant's Petition should
be granted, that the owner's Petition should be granted in part and
that the Administrator's order should be modified to reflect the
Commissioner's correction of the errors in the chart annexed to the
order below cited by the parties and otherwise noted by the
Commissioner; as indicated on the chart annexed hereto and made a
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
part hereof.
The Commissioner notes that it is a long established Division policy
that an owner is not entitled to calculate a subsequent tenant's
rent based on the rent charged under a prior tenant's lease if that
prior tenant had vacated within three months of the commencement of
said lease term. (Accord: AJ 410604-RO.)
Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator erred in
factoring the Hanley second renewal lease term and the Stephen
Sherman vacancy lease term into the calculation of the tenant's
stabilized rent because Hanley and Sherman had vacated the subject
accommodation less than three months after the commencement of those
respective lease terms.
Based on this finding, the Commissioner has recalculated the
tenant's stabilized rent and the refund due the tenant from the
owner on the chart annexed hereto and made a part hereof. With said
recalculation, the tenant's second objection to the order below is
moot. As to the tenant's objections to the Administrator's
inaccurate statement of the terms of the tenant's vacancy and first
renewal leases, the Commissioner finds that the evidence submitted
by both the owner and the tenant proves that the term of those
leases were as noted in the Petition and that the Administrator had
misstated them in the order below. They are correctly set forth in
the chart annexed hereto and made a part hereof.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator committed an error
(albeit, as explained below, only in the technical sense) in not
crediting the owner with any rent increase based on the claimed cost
of improvements to the apartment made prior to the Robustelli lease
term. The owner had claimed to be entitled to a rent increase of
$20.25 based on a cost of $809.82 for improvements. The
Commissioner believes that the owner could, properly, have been
credited with a rent increase of $5.75 based on the owner's having
adequately substantiated $230.00 in costs for improvements that
would have entitled the owner to a rent increase under Section
20(C)(1) of the Code in effect on April 30, 1987. The chart
annexed hereto and made a part hereof reflects that finding.
Nevertheless, as the annexed chart shows, for the purpose of
determining the complaining tenant's rent, the 20(C)(1) increase
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
credited under the Robustelli lease term is irrelevant. Since the
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
owner charged and collected $230.00 under the Hanley vacancy lease
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
(although, credited with a $5.75, 20(C)(1) increase under the
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Robustelli lease term, the owner could have properly charged and
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
collected $246.48), the stabilized rent under the Hanley vacancy
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
lease term, and the base for computing all future Guidelines
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
increases, became $230.00. That is, and was, the case whether the
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
owner had been entitled to a 20(C)(1) increase of $0.00 or $20.25
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
under the Robustelli lease term.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Likewise, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator's chart also
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
contained a technical error in the statement of the stabilized rent
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
under the Robustelli lease term, even without factoring in the
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
20(C)(1) increase. As noted in the chart annexed hereto and made a
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
part hereof, that stabilized rent, before the 20 (C)(1) increase,
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
was properly, $190.75, but the chart below indicates that it was
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
$185.00. This error has been corrected in the chart annexed hereto
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
and made a part hereof. Nevertheless, as noted above, because of
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
the amount of the rent charged and collected under the Hanley
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
vacancy lease, this question is irrelevant to the calculation of the
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
complaining tenant's stabilized rent.*
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
The Commissioner also finds that the Administrator erred in not
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
factoring the Hanley first renewal lease (September 1, 1977 through
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
August 31, 1978) into the calculation of the complaining tenant's
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
legal regulated rent. That error is corrected on the chart annexed
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
hereto and made a part hereof.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Upon reviewing the $9.05 increase credited by the Administrator
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
under the Hanley second renewal lease, the Commissioner finds that
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
that increase was improperly credited.** The items in question are
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
as follows.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Invoice FromWork DescriptionAmount
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
a.) Leon Gray, "Living room wall ...
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
carpenterRemoved wood door frame from
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
sealed up door in wall. Added
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
studs to wall and put up sheet
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
rock to blend in with wall.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Taped and plastered sheetrock" $108.00
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
b) Garcia RepairInstalled new ceiling and walls
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Shopin the bathroom. $253.80
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
submited to support the Robustelli 20(C)(1) increase need not be
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
dealt with on their merits.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
**Therefore, the tenant's objections to the invoices submitted to
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
substantiate said increase are moot.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
The Commissioner finds that the work in question, the repair and/or
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
replacement of walls and ceilings, does not constitute an
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
improvement, but ordinary repairs and maintenance. The error of
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
crediting the owner with a $9.05 rent increase based on the
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
immediately foregoing work has been corrected on the chart annexed
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
hereto and made a part hereof. Thus the owner's contention that
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
said increases should have been credited under the Baptiste lease
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
term, and not the Hanley second renewal, is rendered moot.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator erred in not granting
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
the owner a rent increase (which the owner claims was due under the
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Sherman lease term) based on the cost of installing an additional
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
standing cabinet in the kitchen and moving the stove (and extending
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
the gas line to accommodate its new location). The claimed cost for
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
doing that, as shown on the B & C Enterprises billhead was $225.18.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Therefore, the increase to be credited is $5.63.* The Commissioner
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
notes that said increase is credited on the inception of the
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
complaining tenant's lease because, as noted above, the Sherman
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
lease may not be used as a base for calculating subsequent
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Guidelines increases.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
The Commissioner finds that the owner was not entitled to a rent
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
increase based on the cost of the furniture and furnishings
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
installed. The Commissioner finds that the tenant's allegations
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
below that all of said furniture and furnishings were second-hand
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
when installed are corroborated both by the cost of the items, as
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
shown on the invoices the owner submitted, and by the legend at the
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
bottom of those invoices that states that "All Merchandise Sold As
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Is - No Refunds."
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Both invoices are from Jeffrey Roberts Galleries Inc. of 2193
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Broadway and they list all of the following items at a total cost of
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
$600.00: one kitchen table and two chairs ($100.00); one box spring
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
and one mattress ($100.00); one large table lamp ($25.00); one night
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
table($25.00); one Bassett chest and matching desk and chair
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
($250.00); and one club chair ($100.00).
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
The Commissioner notes that the Code in effect on April 30, 1987 did
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
not provide for an increase based on the installation of furniture
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
and the Code effective May 1, 1987 only provides for such an
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
increase upon the installation of new furniture. Therefore, the
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Commissioner finds that the Administrator's denial of this increase
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
was correct.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
*The Commissioner finds that the tenant's challenge to the validity
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
of this increase (based on allegations that B & C is located at a
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
residential brownstone and is not registered with the County Clerk's
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Office) is without merit.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
The Commissioner points out that the Administrator's chart contained
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
errors which were not cited by the tenant or the owner but which are
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
corrected in the chart annexed hereto and made a part hereof.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
This order and opinion, and the Administrator's order, as amended in
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
accordance with this order and opinion, may, upon the expiration of
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
the period in which the owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Article Seventy-Eight of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
and enforced by the tenant in the same manner as a judgment or not
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
in excess of twenty percent thereof per month may be offset against
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
any rent thereafter due the owner.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
ORDERED, that the tenant's Petition be, and the same hereby is
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
granted; and that the owner's Petition be, and the same hereby is
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
granted, in part; and that the Administrator's order be, and the
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
same hereby is amended in accordance with this order and opinion.
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
ISSUED:
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
ELLIOT SANDER
DOC. NOS.: CB 410105-RT, CB 410099-RO
Deputy Commissioner
|
