STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.CF110198RO
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO.ZAD110257R
               SHARON TOWERS REALTY              TENANT:ROSE STEINHAUER       

                                PETITIONER    : 

               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
                                          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