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.: AJ 630098-RT
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: BCS 00082-OM
       FRANK P. GORGLIONE,                                  DE 630029-RP
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             


           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


     On October 3, 1986 the abovenamed petitioner tenants' representative filed 
     a Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on August 29, 
     19896 by the Rent  Administrator  concerning  the  housing  accommodations
     known as 3881 Sedgwick Avenue, Various Apartments, Bronx.

     The herein appealed order of the Rent Administrator (BCS 00082-OM) granted 
     major capital improvement rent increases for rewiring, a  new  oil  burner
     and boiler, windows, front and vestibu e  doors,  mailboxes,  bell-buzzer-
     intercom system, roof, concrete work on the yard and sidewalk, new boiler 
     room, basement and bulkhead doors, remodeling the elevator cab, new  lobby
     furniture and replumbing.

     In his petition the tenant's representative, among other things, urges, in 
     substance, that as to each and every item no adjustments should have  been
     allowed  or  should  have  been  computed  in  much  lower  amounts;  that
     insufficient checks were submitted  as  to  the  burner  and  boiler;  the
     windows were installed primarily to reduce the owner's  fuel  consumption;
     the rewiring was not in accord with CAB standards; the  plumbing  contract
     did not provide for installing new returns;  various  tenants  still  have
     plumbing problems; and the new roof was necessitated by the prior  neglect
     of the owner.

     The  Commissioner  notes  that  subsequently  the  proceeding  before  the
     Administrator was reopened and another order  was  issued  on  August  21,
     1990 which, among other things, found that remodeling  the  elevator  cab,
     mailboxes,  concrete  work  and  lobby  furniture  did  not  qualify   for
     adjustments and recomputed the rent increases (DE 630029-RP).

     Two physical inspectors disclosed that, as to  various  specific  plumbing
     complains in various apartments, service had been restored.  The order was 
     also without prejudice to the  tenants  in  4  apartments  also  had  leak
     problems filing separate service complaints.

     It was also adduced that returns had, in fact, been installed as  part  of
     the plumbing work.









          DOCKET NUMBER: AJ 630098-RT
     It does not appear that any petitions were filed  against  the  abovenoted
     subsequent order.

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

     As abovenoted, many of the tenants' specific objections were resolved in a 
     subsequent proceeding.

     The adjustments, as modified by the Administrator's subsequent order, were 
     computed on the basis of contracts, bills and  cancelled  checks  actually
     submitted.   The  items  for  which  adjustments  were  ultimately   found
     warranted constitute major capital improvements in accord  witht  he  Code
     and prior practices of this agency and certificates of inspection by other 
     agencies having jurisdiction show that they  were  in  accord  with  legal
     standards.  The fact that some items also resulted in operational  savings
     to the owner or were necessary to cure prior decreases  in  services  does
     not disqualify them for adjustments.

     This  order,  like  the  Administrator's  subsequent  order,  is   without
     prejudice to tenants filing complaints as  to  any  present  decreases  in
     services.

     THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, and  the  Rent
     and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

     ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is, denied and that the 
     order of the Rent Administrator, as subsequently modified, be and the same 
     hereby is, affirmed.

     ISSUED:








                                                                   
                                             ELLIOT SANDER
                                           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