Docket No. CE 210091-RT
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.:CE 210091-RT
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: ZCB 220037-OI
Anna Munze Premises: 934 59th St.,
Apt.2, Bklyn, NY
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a timely Petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations described above.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to
the issues raised by the petition.
The owner commenced these proceedings by filing an Application
for Rent Increase, based upon the installation of four new windows
in the subject apartment (out of a total of 14 new windows
purchased by the owner for 4 different apartments in the building),
in consideration of which the tenant would pay an additional $42.86
per month in rent. The total cost for the purchase and
installation of the new windows was $6,000.00. The tenant signed
the Application in the appropriate place.
Based on the above, the Administrator issued an Order granting
the owner the $42.06 per month rent increase.
In her petition, the tenant contends inter alia that the
Application "was not completed" when presented to her, in as much
as "there was no amount of the rental income disclosed to me."
Tenant also questions the amount of her rent increase, and claims
that she "was misled and unduly influenced in to signing the"
Application.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
denied.
As stated above, the tenant signed the Application, which
contained the information per the monthly rent increase requested
Docket No. CE 210091-RT
by the owner ($42.86) and the amount spent by the owner in
purchasing and installing the new windows ($6,000.00). The
Commissioner believes that by her signature on the Application,
the tenant gave her consent to the monthly rent increase, at the
stated amount. The owner stated that 14 new windows were installed
in the building, of which 4 were the tenant's. These numbers are
not disputed by the tenant on appeal. If, as she claims on appeal,
that she signed the Application without being aware of the amount
of the rent increase being claimed by the owner, the tenant acted
without due care. Aside from her unsubstantiated allegations made
on appeal, there is no evidence to indicate that the tenant was in
any way coerced into signing the Application. The tenant cannot be
allowed to shift the responsibility for her own failure to use
reasonable care, as indicated by her signing of the allegedly
incomplete Application on to the owner.
Similarly, the $6,000.00 expense incurred by the owner in
purchasing and installing the new windows is not challenged by the
tenant. The amortization of the expense was spread over 40 months,
in accordance with Operational Bulletin 84-4. The resulting
formula (4/14 X $6,000.00/40 = $42.86) reveals that the
Administrator was correct in ordering the tenant to pay an
additional $42.86 per month in rent.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, 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.
ISSUED:
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
