FF 110484-RT
                        STATE OF NEW YORK
                           GERTZ PLAZA
                     92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                     JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:
                                        FF 110484-RT
       ARNOLD S. NOLER,                 DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                        PETITIONER      DF 110121-R

On  June  18,  1991,  the above-named petitioner-tenant  filed  a
Petition  for  Administrative Review against an order  issued  on
June   7,   1991  by  a  Rent  Administrator  concerning  housing
accommodations known as Apartment 3-A, 83-34 Lefferts Blvd.,  Kew
Gardens, New York, wherein the Administrator determined that  the
tenant had not been overcharged.

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 administrative appeal.

This  proceeding was commenced by the filing of a rent overcharge
complaint by the tenant on June 9, 1989.

The tenant took occupancy pursuant to a two-year lease commencing
on  January 15, 1974 and expiring February 1, 1976, at a  monthly
rent  of  $190.00.   The  complaint also  stated  that  effective
December  1983,  the previous owner increased all  rents  in  the
building  after the installation of storm windows, but that  this
was improper because no MCI application had ever been filed.

The  owner  was  served  with a copy of  the  complaint  and  was
directed  to submit a complete rent history from the  base  date,
including  copies  of all leases.  The owner complied  with  this

In  Order  No. DF 110121-R, issued on June 7, 1991, the  District
Rent Administrator determined that the 1985 legal registered rent
of  $325.08  had been lawfully increased to $378.75 in accordance
with the orders of the Rent Guidelines Board, and that there were
no overcharges of the tenant's rent.

In  her  petition, dated June 18, 1991, the tenant contends  that
the   Administrator  mistakenly  ruled  on  the  issue   of   the
correctness of the lease rent, but totally ignored the  issue  of
the  improper rent increase for the storm windows, which  is  the
only charge in her complaint.

The  Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should  be

Although  the  tenant  challenges  the  rent  charged  in   1983,
including  an allegedly improper increase for storm windows,  the
record establishes that the subject-premises were duly registered
in  1984,  and that the complainant's rent on April 1,  1984  was
adopted as the initial legal registered rent, in accordance  with
Section 2521.1(c) of the current Rent Stabilization Code. Section
2526  further  provides that unless the initial legal  registered
rent is successfully challenged by the tenant in occupancy within
90 days of the mailing of a copy of the registration statement to
the  tenant, no subsequent challenge may be entertained.  Insofar
as  the complaint alleged no defect in this initial registration,
the  Administrator properly considered it as the legal registered
rent.  Furthermore, as the initial legal registered rent included
the  rent increase for storm windows which the tenant objects to,
and was not challenged by the tenant in accordance with the above
provisions,  the Administrator properly refrained from  reviewing
whether  the increase was properly obtained. Finally,  since  the
Administrator properly determined that there were no  overcharges
for  the four year period prior to the complainant's most  recent
registration statement in April, 1989, in accordance with Section
2521.2  of  the  Code,  the  determination  that  there  were  no
overcharges was proper.

The  Commissioner  notes, however, that the record  contains  the
tenant's signed consent to the increase for the storm windows  as
an  installation of new equipment, which normally adds 1/40th the
cost  of the item to the monthly rent (the owner used 1/60th  the
cost   for   the  storm  windows).   Unlike  MCIs,  no   separate
application  for  such an increase is necessary.   However,  like
MCIs, it becomes a permanent addition to the rent.

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

ORDERED,  that  the tenant's petition be and the same  hereby  is
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same
hereby is affirmed.


                                         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