DK 110306-RT
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.:
DK 110306-RT
DOROTHY ANN TOTO,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER BA 130134-OM
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 29, 1989, the above-named tenant filed a petition
for administrative review of an order issued on November 8, 1989,
by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation,
known as Apartment 2-C, 43-19 165th Street, Flushing, New York,
wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was
entitled to a rent increase based on major capital improvements
(MCI).
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the petition for review.
The owner commenced this proceeding on January 21, 1987, by
filing an application for a rent increase based on major capital
improvements, to wit - replacement heating system, windows,
pointing, intercom bell and buzzer system, and front door with
lock at a total cost of $43,380.00.
The owner certified that on March 18, 1987 it served each tenant
with a copy of the application and placed a copy of the entire
application including all required supplements and supporting
documentation with the resident superintendent of the subject
building.
The tenant did not file an objection to the owner's application
although afforded the opportunity to do so.
On November 8, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order
here under review finding that the installations qualified as
major capital improvements, determining that the application
complied with the relevant laws and regulations based upon the
supporting documentation submitted by the owner, and allowing
appropriate rent increases f r rent controlled and rent sta-
DK 110306-RT
bilized apartments.
Increases based on the installation of the intercom, bell and
buzzer system, and front door with lock were disallowed.
In her petition for administrative review, the tenant requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging that her
lease does not contain a provision permitting the owner to
collect an increase pursuant to a Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR) order during her current lease term.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the order under review already
contains a provision which protects tenants from a rent increase
pursuant to DHCR order during the current terms of their leases
unless the lease contains a provision which authorizes an owner
to collect it. The Commissioner also notes that the tenant has
failed to submit a copy of her lease and that her allegation that
her lease does not contain such a provision is otherwise un-
supported by any substantiating evidence. Accordingly, the
Commissioner determines that the tenant has offered insufficient
reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's order. The tenant is
advised to refer to the lease in effect when the increase was
ordered to determine whether the increase was collectible during
the lease term. If the owner has collected an impermissible
amount and refused to make an appropriate refund, the tenant may
file an overcharge complaint with the Division.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
DK 110306-RT
|
