CC 410442 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 NO.: CC 410442-RO
                            
                                               :  
           MILFORD MANAGEMENT                    DRO DOCKET NO.: L 3112437-R  
           CORP.,
                                                 TENANT:  ANNA GIANCOTTI
                                  PETITIONER  : 
          ------------------------------------X                             


               ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On March 25, 1988 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition 
          for Administrative Review against an order issued on February 24, 
          1988, in amendment of an order issued on October 20, 1986, by a 
          Rent Administrator, concerning housing accommodations known as 
          Apartment #1110 at 155 West 68th Street, New York, New York, 
          wherein it was determined that the tenant had been overcharged in 
          the amount of $2,042.60.

          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 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 by the filing of a rent 
          overcharge complaint by the tenant, Anna Giancotti, on March 25, 
          1984.

          The tenant took occupancy pursuant to a 3 year lease commencing on 
          December 1, 1979 and expiring November 30, 1982 at a monthly rent 
          of $585.00.  The complainant vacated the apartment in October, 1982 
          prior to filing the complaint that commenced this proceeding.  She 
          moved into Apartment 1226 in the same building.












          CC 410442 RO


          Francesca Giancotti, the tenant in occupancy after the complainant 
          in this proceeding, filed her own rent overcharge complaint on the 
          same day as the complainant in this proceeding.  On April 17, 1985 
          the Rent Administrator issued an order under Docket Number L- 
          3112824-R, wherein it was determined that the tenant Francesca 
          Giancotti, had been overcharged for the period from November 15, 
          1982 through April 30, 1985.  The Administrator awarded treble 
          damages for overcharges collected after April 1, 1984 resulting in 
          total overcharges of $4,677.32.  The amount mistakenly included 
          overcharges of $2,161.00 to Anna Giancotti for the same period that 
          was reviewed in the order appealed in this order and opinion.

          On October 20, 1986, the Rent Administrator issued the order 
          appealed herein under Docket # L 3112437-R, wherein it was 
          determined that the complainant, Anna Giancotti, had been 
          overcharged, and further directed the owner to refund a total of 
          $2,119.95 to the tenant.

          Subsequently, on February 24, 1988, the Rent Administrator issued 
          an amended order under Docket Number L 3112437-R, wherein total 
          overcharges were reduced to $2,042.60 for the same period.  
          In its petition, dated March 21, 1988, the owner contends that the 
          Administrator erred by including overcharges that had previously 
          been included in the award to the subsequent tenant in Order # L 
          3112824-R.  The owner also challenges the amount accepted by the 
          Administrator for the costs of new equipment installed during the 
          lease terms of the prior tenant and the complainant.  Other items 
          in the petition did not bear upon the Administrator's calculations.

          In her answer, the tenant challenges the owner's claims for the 
          cost of the new equipment, and supports the Administrator's 
          determination on this matter.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 
          denied.

          Section 20C(1) of the former Rent Stabilization Code provides in 
          pertinent part that for the installation of new equipment or 
          improvements in a particular dwelling unit, the monthly 
          stabilization rent may be increased by 1/40 of the total cost of 
          such equipment or improvement, provided that the tenant then in 
          occupancy has given written consent.  If the new equipment is 
          installed during a vacancy prior to the commencement of a new 
          tenancy and is reflected in the lease rent, tenant consent to the 
          increase is implied.


          Although petitioner submits its own figures for the cost of 
          equipment installed for the prior tenant and for the complainant, 
          the petition fails to mention what evidence in the record verifies 
          that these alleged items were actually delivered, and what they 






          CC 410442 RO

          cost.  There are no copies of checks for these items, nor does the 
          invoice specify the intended apartment or date of delivery.  The 
          only document that even mentions the subject apartment is a "point 
          order" that lists several of the items, without cost or delivery 
          date, and mentions that it was written pursuant to a telephone 
          conversation with the prior tenant; but it is unsigned.  Such 
          unspecific and unclear evidence is not sufficient to challenge the 
          Administrator's findings.

          Petitioner claims that because it has credited $4,609.71 to "the 
          Giancottis" it has already refunded the total overcharge.  In 
          alleged proof of this, the petitioner submits a single page 
          handwritten note, undated and unsigned, that states that $2,586.09 
          was "already given" to the tenant in apartment 1226, which 
          presumably refers to Anna Giancotti, although the note is far from 
          clear on this.  At any rate, the complainant in this case is only 
          Anna Giancotti, and the note does not specify that this "credit" 
          was only given to her and applied to the rent in her new apartment.  
          Any refund to the complainant's daughter, Francesca Giancotti, 
          cannot be credited here because that was in satisfaction of her own 
          overcharge complaint, in Order No. L-3112824-R.  There is no 
          breakdown of the amount and date of this alleged "credit", and the 
          tenant does not acknowledge receipt of the refund.  Therefore, on 
          the basis of the owner's evidence, the amount of overcharges as 
          stated in the Administrator's order will remain.

          This is without prejudice to the owner's right to establish the 
          amount of refund in a separate proceeding in a court of competent 
          jurisdiction.

          This 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 an enforced by the 
          tenant in the same manner as a judgment or not in excess of twenty 
          percent thereof per month be offset any rent thereafter due the 
          owner.










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

          ORDERED, that the owner's Petition be, and the same hereby is 
          denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
          is, affirmed.












          CC 410442 RO




          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