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.CF110240RO
                                              :    DRO DOCKET NO.ZAC110025R
             Joseph Turriciano                     TENANT: Frank I. Lukacs

                               PETITIONER     :
          ------------------------------------X

             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
          improvement increase.

          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
          submitted receipts.  



          CF110240RO












          CF110240RO

          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
          denied.

          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
          improvement.

          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 






          CF110240RO

          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
          Commissioner's Order.


          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.




          ISSUED:




           
                                                      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