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
    

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