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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: DI210205RO 

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
             SYLVAN TERRACE REALTY CO.            NO.: DD220063OI


               On September 21, 1989 the above named petitioner-landlord 
          filed an appeal in accordance with the applicable provisions of the 
          City Rent Law and Regulations against an order issued on September 
          5, 1989 by the Rent Administrator of the Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New 
          York Rent Office, concerning the housing accommodation known as 
          8802 Ridge Blvd., Apt. D8, Brooklyn, N.Y.

               The issue in this proceeding is whether the District Rent 
          Administrator's order issued was correct.

               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 commenced on April 7, 1989 by the owner's 
          filing of an application for rent increase based on changes n 
          services or other improvements.

               In response to the application the tenant stated that she 
          agreed to pay for the installation of the new windows in her 
          apartment in full or installments until the windows were paid for 
          in full.  It was not the tenant's intention to have the cost of 
          these windows calculated into the rent as a permanent rent 
          increase.  The old windows were in hazardous condition and had to 
          be replaced.  As a last resort the tenant offered to pay for the 
          replacement windows since this appeared to be the only means by 
          which the tenant could have the old windows removed.

          ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NO.: DI210205RO

               On May 3, 1989, June 14, 1989 and August 4, 1989 the rent 
          Administrator requested the owner to submit a copy of the invoice 
          and cancelled checks for the purchase of the new thermal windows.  
          Each notice gave the owner 20 days in which to respond.  The August 
          4, 1989 notice was stated to be a "final notice."

               On September 5, 1989 the Rent Administrator issued order 
          number DD220063OI denying an increase in maximum rent for new 

               On appeal the owner states, in substance, that on September 6, 
          1989 the owner submitted the information requested by D.H.C.R. by 
          certified mail return receipt requested.  The information consisted 
          of a copy of a cancelled check and a copy of the bill.  The check 
          was for $370.00 less than the invoice amount, allegedly because the 
          owner was waiting for the contractor to fix one of the windows.  
          Although the owner stated in his response that a copy of the check 
          for the remaining $370.00 would be submitted when issued, no such 
          check is in the record.

               After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of the 
          record, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the appeal should 
          be denied.

               The Commissioner notes that the petitioner failed on three 
          occasions to submit proof of the invoice for the purchase of the 
          new thermal windows.  The petitioner did not submit the proof until 
          September 6, 1989, which was one day after the Administrator issued 
          the denial order and 33 days after receiving the 3rd 20 day notice.
          The owner offered no excuse for the late filing at the time of 
          filing and offers no excuse for same in this petition.

               An administrative appeal is not a de novo proceeding, but, 
          absent good cause, is limited to the evidence and issues which were 
          before the Administrator.  The petitioner has offered no excuse for 
          its repeated failure to timely submit the requested information to 
          the Administrator.  Therefore, it can not be considered on appeal.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is 

          ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NO.: DI210205RO

               ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same 
          hereby is, denied, and that the order of the Rent Administrator be, 
          and the same hereby is, affirmed.


                                             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