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.CF110240RO
: DRO DOCKET NO.ZAC110025R
Joseph Turriciano TENANT: Frank I. Lukacs
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 28, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order issued on May 25, 1988
by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, N.Y.
concerning the housing accommodation known as 683 Seneca Avenue,
Apartment 3L, Ridgewood, New York, wherein the Administrator
determined that the tenant had been overcharged.
The Commissioner has reviewed the entire evidence of record and
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised in the Administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on November 24, 1987 when the tenant
filed a complaint of rent overcharge.
In answer to the complaint, the owner submitted a lease history
from the base date and asserted that the rent included an allowance
for individual apartment improvements.
While this proceeding was pending, the subject building was sold.
The current owner submitted some receipts to substantiate the
In the order issued on May 25, 1988, the Administrator found that
the owner had not substantiated its entitlement to an increase
based on improvements and determined that the owner had collected
an overcharge in the amount of $870.15 inclusive of excess security
and interest on the overcharge.
In his appeal, the owner contends that he is entitled to a rent
increase based on improvements whose cost was substantiated by
The tenant contends that the petition should be denied because 1)
there are outstanding violations related to the alleged
improvements that have not been corrected; 2) the alleged
improvements e.g.a new bathroom ceiling has not been done; 3)
payment for improvements have not been substantiated.
The Comissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code provides in pertinent
part that an owner is entitled to a rent increase where there has
been a substantial increase of dwelling space or an increase in the
services, or installation of new equipment or improvements on
written tenant consent to the rent increase. In the case of vacant
housing accommodations, no consent is required.
In the event of a tenant challenge to the rent, an owner must
establish his entitlement to the rent increase by submitting
documentation, i.e. invoices which specify the nature of the
improvement and which state when and where the improvement was done
as well as cancelled checks or contemporaneous paid in full
statements showing payment in substantiation of the alleged
In the instant case, the Administrator determined that the owner
had not substantiated a rent increase based on Code Section
2522.4(a) and disallowed the increase.
Review of the record reveals that the receipts submitted by the
owner are defective in that no address or purchaser is specified on
two of the three bills and no apartment number in specified on any
of the bills. Moreover, there is no indication of payment.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator did not
err in disallowing the increase.
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 findnds and
determinations made in this order. The owner is further directed
to adjust subsequent rents to an amount no greater than that
determined by this order plus any lawful increases.
The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that the
owner collected overcharges of $870.15. Upon expiration of the
period for seeking review of this Order and Opinion pursuant to
Article Seventy-eight of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, not in
excess of twenty percent per month of the overcharge may be
offset against any rent thereafter due the owner. Where the tenant
credits the overcharge, the tenant may add to the overcharge,
interest at the rate payable on a judgment pursuant to Section 5004
of the Civil Practice law and Rules from the issuance date of the
Rent Administrator's Order to the issuance date of the
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