STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.CF110198RO
: DRO DOCKET NO.ZAD110257R
SHARON TOWERS REALTY TENANT:ROSE STEINHAUER
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 27, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on June
21, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,
Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as
108-49 63 Avenue, Queens, New York, Apartment No.5N,
wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had
overcharged the tenant.
The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was
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.
The tenant originally commenced this proceeding by filing a
complaint of rent overcharge. The owner was served with a copy of
the complaint and was directed to submit a complete rental history.
The owner was advised that if it claimed a rent increase for the
installation of new equipment, it was required to submit invoice(s)
showing the cost and date of installation. The owner did not submit
any proof of the cost of the new equipment claimed.
In her order, the Rent Administrator established the legal
regulated rent; did not grant a rent increase for any new equipment;
and determined a rent overcharge.
In its petition, the owner claims in substance that the Rent
Administrator should have been granted a rent increase for the
installation of a new stove, new refrigerator, new kitchen floor,
new windows and new blinds which were placed in the subject
apartment upon occupancy by the tenant herein and which were listed
in the tenant's vacancy lease. The owner also stated it was
eligible for a rent increase due to a major capital improvement, but
it had not yet collected a rent increase for same. Again the owner
submitted no proof of the cost of the new equipment that was
allegedly installed in the subject apartment.
In answer to the owner's petition, the tenant stated in
substance that the stove was used, that the kitchen floor was not
replaced,, that the windows do not operate properly and that she
purchased her own refrigerator.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code permits a rent
increase equal to one-fortieth the cost of new equipment. The
Commissioner finds that the owner is not entitled to a rent increase
for the alleged new equipment because it did not submit the required
proof of this installation.
The owner is directed to reflect the findings and
determinations made in this order on all future registration
statements, including those for the current year if not already
filed, citing this order as the basis for the change. Registration
statements already on file, however, should not be amended to
reflect the findings and determination made in this order. The
owner is further directed to adjust subsequent rents to an amount no
greater than that determined by the Rent Administrator's order plus
any lawful increases.
Upon the expiration of the period in which the owner may
institute a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice
Law and Rules, not in excess of twenty percent per month thereof may
be offset against any rent thereafter due the owner. The total
amount of the overcharge through June 30, 1988 is $802.70.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and
the same hereby is, denied, and, that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA