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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.DE410332RO
                                              :   DRO DOCKET NO.AD410425R
            Moshe Samouha                         TENANT:Thomas T.Quinlavin

                               PETITIONER     :


          On May 25, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner, timely re-filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review against an order  issued  on
          April 4, 1989 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, 
          Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          274 East Third Street, Apartment 7, New York, New York, wherein the 
          Administrator determined that the tenant had been overcharged.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence of record and has 
          carefully considered that portion of the record relevant  to  the
          issue raised in the Administrative Appeal.

          This proceeding was commenced on April 28, 1986 when  the  tenant
          filed a complaint of rent overcharge.

          In answer to the complaint, the  owner  asserted  that  all  rent
          increases were in keeping  with  rent  guidelines  and  that  the
          apartment had been totally renovated at a cost of  $3875.00  when
          vacant  in  1984.   Subsequently,  the  owner  submitted  leases,
          registration statements and some bills and cancelled checks.

          In the order here under review, the Administrator, finding that the 
          owner had failed to  substantiate  alleged  individual  apartment
          improvements,  disallowed  any  rent  increase  based   on   such
          improvements and determined that the tenant had been overcharged in 
          the amount of $20,945.34 inclusive of excess security and  treble

          In this appeal, the owner contends that a rent increase based  on
          apartment  improvements  substantiated  by  evidence  which   was
          submitted to the Administrator should be permitted.


          In response, the  tenant  contends  that  such  an  increase  was
          correctly disallowed because  1) there have been no  improvements
          which qualify for a rent increase,  2) any work that was done was 
          repair work and not improvements and 3) the owner  has  submitted
          fraudulent documents (the owner has been inconsistent as  to  the
          total amount spent) which do not support the claimed increase.

          Although afforded the opportunity to do so, the owner did not reply 
          to the tenant's contentions although the owner did state that  it
          was entitled to an additional rent increase for the installation of 
          windows during the tenant's occupancy..

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied.

          Section 2522.4(a) of the 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 services, 
          or installation of new equipment or improvements provided in or to 
          the tenant's housing accommodation, on written tenant consent  to
          the rent increase.  In the case of vacant housing accommodations, 
          tenant consent is not required.

          Although an owner is permitted to increase the rent for individual 
          apartment improvements without the express approval of the  DHCR,
          the owner is required, when the rent is challenged by a tenant, to 
          submit proof, i.e. bills, invoices, signed  contracts,  cancelled
          checks documenting the nature of the  improvement,  the  date  of
          accomplishment and payment.

          In the instant case, the owner has not established its entitlement 
          to a rent increase for apartment improvements.  A review  of  the
          documents reveals the following defects: the amounts billed do not 
          match the amount paid, some bills do not have headings showing the 
          supplier's name and address, some bills have altered or incomplete 
          dates.  Two checks are made payable to Willie Font-allegedly  the
          super of the subject building-who endorsed and then returned them 
          to the owner who also endorsed them.  Given the tenant's outright 
          denial of the alleged improvements, the owner's failure to comment 
          thereon and the defective documents submitted,  the  Commissioner
          finds that the Administrator, based on the evidence submitted, did 
          not err in disallowing the rent increase.  With  respect  to  the
          owner's request for an increase  based  on  the  installation  of
          four(4) windows, the Commissioner notes that the owner neglected to 
          submit  as  evidence  the  tenant's  written   consent   to   the
          installation.  Therefore, that increase may not be taken.


          Correspondence from the owner indicates that  pursuant  to  a  so
          ordered stipulation  of  settlement  dated  August  5,  1993  the
          complainant has vacated the subject premises  and  withdrawn  his
          overcharge complaint.  The agreement between the  owner  and  the
          complainant has no effect upon the determination  of  the  lawful
          stabilization rent found in Administrator's  order.   The  lawful
          stabilization rent is $476.53 as of October 1, 1988- September 30, 

          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 increase.

          A copy of this order is being sent to  the  tenant  currently  in

          THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the   Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and 
          the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed 
          as to the determination of the lawful stabilization rent.


                                                    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