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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. GL210204RO
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO.GD210276R
               DOROTHY SCHECTER                  TENANT: CHARLES MAROTTA

                                PETITIONER    : 

               On December 16, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on 
          November 13, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall 
          Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 329 East Second Street, New York, New York, Apartment No. 
          2R (4), 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 

               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 by the filing of an overcharge 
          complaint by the tenant in April 1992.  In such complaint, the 
          tenant stated that he first moved to the subject apartment in 
          January 1992 at a rental of $675.00 per month and that the rent was 
          then increased to $700.00 per month effective April 1, 1992.

               In an answer to the tenant's complaint filed on May 16, 1992, 
          the owner stated in substance that improvements totalling $13,245 
          were installed in the subject apartment including electric fixtures 
          installed in November 1990; electric fixtures, sockets and switches 
          installed in February 1991; removal of illegal drop ceilings in two 
          bedrooms; installation of sheetrock and plastered ceiling and 
          painting by contractor Jaime Oquendo in January and February 1991; 
          installation of new kitchen cabinets, new kitchen sink, new kitchen 
          floor, new tile wall and floor in bathroom, new gas stove, new 
          sheetrock ceilings by D & M Custom Woodwork Co. in July 1991 at a 
          cost of $4400; removal of defective flooring throughout apartment 
          and installation of new beams, reinforced underflooring and 
          installation of new flooring in March 1991; and installation of new 
          stove and refrigerator in January 1991.  Copies of some bills and 
          cancelled checks were submitted in support of the owner's 



               During the course of the proceeding, the tenant stated in 
          substance that the only new items he saw when he moved to the 
          subject apartment were a new stove and a new refrigerator.

               On September 15, 1992, the owner was sent a request for 
          additional information by the DHCR directing her to submit proof of 
          tenant's consent to the electrical installation work done in 
          November 1990 and February 1991; an itemized breakdown of costs for 
          each claimed improvement item with corresponding proof of payment; 
          and copies of cancelled checks for the appliance items claimed.

               In a response dated September 15, 1992, the owner stated in 
          substance that D & M Custom Woodwork did not in fact do any work in 
          the subject apartment and that the owner was withdrawing the bills 
          and cancelled checks for such company as they were submitted in 
          error; that in March 1991, George Floor Scraping replaced all 
          deteriorated wood in the apartment, reinforced the underflooring, 
          reinforced the kitchen floor and installed vinyl on same, and sanded 
          the floors at a cost of $2,000; repeated claims as to the electric 
          work done in the subject apartment in November 1990 and stated that 
          this work was done when a prior tenant told her he was planning on 
          moving; that a new wooden front entrance door and new bathroom door 
          were installed on February 7, 1991 at a total cost of $94.07; that 
          a new marble vanity was installed in January 1991 at a total cost of 
          $216.37; repeated claims as to the work done by Jaime Oquendo and 
          the fact that a new stove and refrigerator were installed; and 
          stated that the following work was done by Carlos Melendez at a 
          total cost of $3,138.45 between January and April 1991 - 
          installation of new stove, removed all of the defective flooring 
          throughout apartment, removed rotted beams, installed new beams, 
          reinforced underflooring and installed new flooring, installed new 
          kitchen cabinets, new kitchen sink,  new tile on kitchen floor, 
          installed new tile wall, new tile floor, new bathroom sink and 
          cabinet in bathroom.  It was also stated that Mr. Melendez supplied 
          the labor but that the owner supplied all of the appliances and 
          materials.  In support of the owner's contentions, copies of bills 
          and cancelled checks for the various contractors and for the new 
          vanity, stove and refrigerator and a copy of an affidavit from 
          Carlos Melendez were submitted, but no bills were submitted for the 
          kitchen cabinets, kitchen sink, and bathroom sink.

               On September 29, 1992, the owner was sent a request for 
          additional information by the DHCR and directed to explain why the 
          affidavit of Carlos Melendez stated that he replaced flooring 
          throughout the apartment whereas George Floor Scraping claims to 
          have done the same thing, and further directed the owner to supply 
          proof of the prior tenant's consent to the electrical work done in 
          the apartment.

               In a response dated October 14, 1992, the owner stated in 
          substance that the complaining tenant died two weeks ago; that 


          Mr.Melendez was mistaken in stating that he installed flooring 
          throughout the subject apartment whereas he installed a new bathroom 
          floor in tile after reinforcing the beams and the wood below in the 
          bathroom but that the rest of the Melendez affidavit was correct and 
          that the prior tenant burned out the existing wiring and that is why 
          it had to be replaced.

               In Order Number GD210276R, the Rent Administrator determined 
          that the tenant had been overcharged in the amount of $8,163.21 from 
          January 15, 1992 through October 31, 1992 (the month of the tenant's 
          death) including treble damages.  The Rent Administrator allowed 
          rent increases only for the new refrigerator, new stove and new 
          vanity.  Further, the Rent Administrator determined the lawful 
          stabilization rent of the subject apartment was $428,71 as of April 
          1, 1992.

               In this petition, the owner alleges in substance that the owner 
          should have been credited for all improvements made in the subject 
          apartment, that the tenant did not always pay the correct rent and 
          that in any event, the imposition of treble damages was not 

               Subsequently, the owner submitted a copy of a settlement 
          statement wherein the tenant's father as executor of the tenant's 
          estate received a monetary payment to settle the overcharge 
          complaint of the tenant.  A copy of the general release signed by 
          the tenant's father dated June 15, 1993 was also submitted.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 

               An examination of the record in this case discloses that the 
          owner did not submit sufficient evidence to substantiate some of the 
          claimed improvements for which a rent increase was not allowed by 
          the Rent Administrator.  Further some of the items appear to have 
          been claimed twice or were ordinary repairs or maintenance work for 
          which no rent increase is warranted such as painting, sanding of 
          floors and sheetrock work.  Finally, some of the work was done while 
          a prior tenant was in occupancy of the subject apartment and the 
          owner did not submit written proof of such prior tenant's consent as 
          required.  Accordingly, the Rent Administrator's order was warranted 
          in allowing a rent increase only for the refrigerator, stove and 
          marble vanity.

               With regard to the owner's settlement of the overcharge 
          complaint with the tenant's estate, it is noted that the rights of 
          future tenants pursuant to the Rent Administrator's order remain 
          unaffected by this settlement.  However, to the extent that the 
          stipulation purports to settle arrearages, the Commissioner notes 
          that this is a contractual matter between the parties not within the 
          purview of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, and not subject to 

          jurisdiction of the DHCR.  With respect to the issue of treble 
          damages, it is noted that such issue has been rendered moot by the 


          monetary settlement with the tenant's estate.  A copy of this order 
          is being sent to the current occupant of the subject apartment.

               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 

               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.


                                          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