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

          APPEAL OF                                DOCKET NO. CF610242RO
                                              :    DRO DOCKET NO.AE610122R
              Suraj Realty Corp.                   TENANT:Mahadaya Choorman 
                               PETITIONER     :

                                       IN PART
          On June 21, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition 
          for Administrative Review against an order issued on May 20, 1988, 
          by a Rent Administrator, concerning  the  housing  accommodations
          known as 1591 Townsend Ave, Bronx,  New  York,  Apartment  No.2D,
          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 tenant had assumed occupancy on 
          March 1, 1985 pursuant to a two year lease at a rent of $477.65 per 
          month.  In the complaint the tenant stated that although the owner 
          increased the rent for many items, the only new equipment in  the
          apartment was a refrigerator, a stove, a cabinet and two sinks.

          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.  On March 1,  1988,  the  owner  submitted  various
          invoices and other documents to verify the installation and cost of 
          equipment installed immediately prior to the tenant's occupancy.


          In an order issued  on  May  20,  1988,  the  Rent  Administrator
          determined that the tenant had been overcharged in the amount  of
          $8,022.48, including interest on overcharges collected on and after 
          April 1, 1984.  The Administrator did not include any allowance for 
          new equipment.

          In the petition, the owner protests the Administrator's failure to 
          include an allowance increase for  the  new  equipment,  and  the
          failure to grant a rent increase for the renewal lease commencing 
          on March 1, 1987.

          The Commissioner is of the considered opinion that this  petition
          should be granted in part.

          Section 2522.4 of the Rent  Stabilization  Code  permits  a  rent
          increase equal to one-fortieth the cost of new equipment.  A review 
          of the record established that the documentation submitted by the 
          owner was sufficient to establish the cost of the following items:
               1 cabinet + 2 sinks                          $  270.00
               (combined on same invoice)
               1 stove                                      $  400.00
               1 refrigerator                               $  460.00
               Total    items                                     $1,130.00
               + Tax (8.25%)                                $   93.23
               Total                                        $1,223.23
               : 40                                         :      40
               Monthly increase                             $   30.58   

          In accordance with the processing method for confirming the cost of 
          equipment, as published in Policy Statement  (90-10),  the  above
          items were the only ones out of a total claim in  the  amount  of
          $7,642.76 to qualify for a rent increase.  Of the remainder of the 
          claim, various items were rejected as either normal maintenance and 
          repair or because the invoices submitted were indecipherable.

          With regard to the owner's contention that the Administrator failed 
          to grant a rent increase for the "extension lease" commencing  on
          March 1, 1987, the Commissioner notes that the record contains no 
          such lease, nor did the owner ever refer to one in any submission 
          in the record.  The Administrator  properly  concluded  that  the
          tenancy continued only on a month-to-month basis  when  the  then
          current lease expired on February 28, 1987; accordingly the legal 
          regulated rent may not be increased.

          By deducting the partial grant for new equipment in the amount of 


          $30.58 from the monthly overcharge in  the  order,  $186.56,  the
          monthly overcharge is reduced to $155.98.

          As multiplied by 39 months (March 1, 1985 through May 31,  1988),
          total overcharges amount to $6,083.22;  the  addition  of  excess
          security of $155.98 and interest of $912.54 brings the total amount 
          to $7151.74.

          This order may, upon the expiration of the period  in  which  the
          owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Article Seventy-Eight 
          of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and enforced by the 
          tenant in the same manner as a judgment or not in excess of twenty 
          percent thereof per month may be offset against any rent thereafter 
          due the owner.

          If the owner has already complied with the Administrator's  order
          and there are arrears due to the owner as a result of the instant 
          determination, the tenant may pay off the arrears in twelve  (12)
          equal monthly installments.  Should the tenant vacate  after  the
          issuance of this order, said arrears shall be payable immediately.

          THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that the Petition be, and the same hereby is granted  in
          part; and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is 
          amended in accordance with this order and opinion.



                                                   JOSEPH 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