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. CF610242RO
: DRO DOCKET NO.AE610122R
Suraj Realty Corp. TENANT:Mahadaya Choorman
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
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
: 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
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.