CK410012RO

                                  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. CK410012RO
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO.ZAD410124R
               MICHAEL STOUT & FARHAD            TENANT: MARY JO FRENCH
               TORABKHAN
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             
             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On November 1, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on 
          September 28, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall 
          Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 68 West 85 Street, New York, New York, Apartment No. 10, 
          wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had 
          overcharged the tenant.

               The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions of Section 2526.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

               The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was 
          warranted.

               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.  

               This proceeding was originally commenced in April, 1986, by the 
          tenant's filing of a rent overcharge complaint in which the tenant 
          stated that she first moved to the subject apartment pursuant to a 
          one year lease commencing February 1, 1986 at a rental of $995.00 
          per month.  The owner was served with a copy of the tenant's 
          complaint and afforded an opportunity to respond.

               In response to the tenant's complaint, the owner stated in 
          substance that it had made improvements totalling $30,304.29 prior 
          to the occupancy of the tenant herein and when that is taken into 
          account, it is apparent that no rent overcharge occurred.  In 
          support of such contention, the owner submitted a copy of a proposal 
          from the contractor Dourkon Company signed as accepted by one of the 
          owners listing a total cost of $23,500 for work done in the subject 
          apartment including scraping and painting; copies of a bill for the 
          installation of mirrors totalling $480.00; copies of bills for 
          $94.72 and $188.36 from Glantz Lighting Inc.; a copy of a bill of 
          $698.21 for a wrought iron railing; and a copy of an invoice for 
          marble tile, sink and saddle for a total cost of $5,342.00 from 
          Manhattan Marble Co.










          CK410012RO




               The owner was asked to submit copies of cancelled checks for 
          its submission of improvements and to show a breakdown for the cost 
          of each item separately.  In response, the owner submitted copies of 
          cancelled checks to Dourkon Company totalling $21,550.00.  The owner 
          also submitted a breakdown of the Dourkon Company costs which 
          indicated that $1400 of the total cost of its contract was for 
          painting, plastering and scraping.

               In Order Number ZAD410124, the Rent Administrator determined 
          that the tenant had been overcharged in the amount of $3,082.12 
          including interest and excess security and directed the owner to 
          refund such overcharge to the tenant.  In such determination, the 
          owner was given credit for substantiated improvement costs totalling 
          $20,150.00 (the total proved by the cancelled checks of $21,550.00 
          minus $1400.00 for the painting, plastering and scraping - 
          disallowed as not constituting new equipment or improvements. 

               In this petition, the owner alleges in substance that it should 
          have been credited with a rent increase for the other improvements 
          for which it submitted proof; that the existence of the other 
          improvements could have been verified by a DHCR inspection and that 
          it should have been allowed a rent increase for sales tax relating 
          to the improvements.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 
          denied.

               An examination of the record in this case discloses that the 
          owner received credit for all allowable substantiated improvements.  
          Other invoices submitted by the owner were not marked paid in full 
          and/or did not specify the subject apartment or as in the case of 
          the painting, plastering and scraping are not considered 
          improvements for which a rent increase is warranted.  Further where 
          the improvement costs were substantiated by the cancelled checks, 
          there is no evidence that sales tax was excluded from the costs.  
          Accordingly, the Rent Administrator's order was warranted.

               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 findings 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 $3,082.12.  This Order may, upon 
          expiration of the period for seeking review of this Order and 
          Opinion pursuant to Article Seventy-eight of the Civil Practice Law 






          CK410012RO


          and Rules, be filed and enforced as a judgment or 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, or where the 
          tenant files this Order as a judgment, the County Clerk 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




                     



































          CK410012RO




    

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