AL 110041 RT, AL 110042 RT, AL 110043 RT, AL 110044 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          
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.: AL 110041 RT,
                                                               AL 110042 RT,    
           JEFFREY FICHTELBERG, CHARLES LAMAR,                 AL 110043 RT,
              JAMES AND EVELYN COLLINS,                        AL 110044 RT
                          AND
                     DIANE KOSIC,                 DISTRICT RENT ORDER
                                                  DOCKET NO.:  QS 000274-OM
                                 PETITIONERS
          ----------------------------------X                                   

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On December 1 ,  17  and  19,  1986  the  above  named  petitioner-
          tenants filed Petitions for Administrative Review against an  order
          issued on November 17, 1986 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31  Union
          Hall Street, Jamaica, New York  concerning  housing  accommodations
          known as 33-15, 33-25 and 33-35 81st Street  and  33-16  and  33-26
          82nd Street, Jackson Heights, New York.

          These  proceedings  have  been  consolidated  pursuant  to  Section
          2529.1(c) of the Rent Stabilization Code  (Code)  as  they  involve
          common issues of law or fact.

          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 appeals.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on November 20, 1984 by  filing
          an application for Major Capital Improvement  (MCI)  increases  for
          the 270 apartments located at the subject  premises  based  on  the
          installation of the following:

               aluminum replacement windows,

               water risers and branches,

               a new water storage tank,

               a hot water heater,

               electrical rewiring (including  a  fire  alarm  and  smoke
               detector system),

               a new roof, 

               roof insulation, 

               masonry, 







          AL 110041 RT, AL 110042 RT, AL 110043 RT, AL 110044 RT
               pointing and waterproofing.

          The  owner  submitted  documentary   evidence   showing   it   made
          expenditures totalling $1,045,277.60 for said installations.

          In response to the application, the subject tenants objected to any 
          MCI increase, asserting, in substance, that the work performed  was
          in the nature of repair and maintenance or was only cosmetic,  that
          the work was not performed properly, that certain  items  were  not
          installed building-wide and the work was only done for the  benefit
          of the  owner's  planned  cooperative  conversion  of  the  subject
          premises.  Several other tenants submitted responses  objecting  to
          MCI increases.

          The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, partially  granted
          the owner's application. The Rent Administrator approved  increases
          for the installation of the new storage  tank,  hot  water  heater,
          aluminum replacement windows, part of the electrical rewiring,  new
          roof,  roof  insulation,  masonry  and  waterproofing.   The   Rent
          Administrator  disallowed  expenditures  of  $17,741.00  for  water
          risers and branches and $22,000.00 for the  fire  alarm  and  smoke
          detector system based on a determination that  these  installations
          did not constitute Major Capital Improvements.

          The  Rent  Administrator  further  disallowed  part  of  the  costs
          ($10,244.60) for the aluminum replacement windows as  not  properly
          substantiated.

          In these petitions, the tenants contend,  in  substance,  that  the
          work performed was in the nature of repair and maintenance  or  was
          cosmetic only and did not qualify for MCI increases, that the  work
          was performed to enhance the value of the premises for  cooperative
          conversion purposes and therefore the costs should not be passed on 
          to the rental tenants, that the tenants should be entitled  to  the
          benefit of any tax abatements the owner received, and that the  MCI
          increases were excessive.

          Further, two of the petitioner-tenants contend that the walls  were
          not properly plastered after the rewiring and that the windows  are
          defective in that they are of poor quality and leak cold air.   One
          petitioner-tenant contends that the new water storage tank and  hot
          water heater are not functioning properly, that the water  flow  is
          insufficient and the temperature fluctuates erratically.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions  should  be
          denied.



          Section 9 NYCRR 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code provides,  in
          pertinent part, that an owner qualifies for a rent  increase  where
          there has been a building-wide major capital improvement  which  is
          deemed depreciable under the Internal Revenue Code, other than  for
          ordinary repairs.  Based on the improvements made herein, i.e., the 
          installation of a new storage  tank,  hot  water  heater,  electric
          rewiring, new roof, roof insulation, masonry and waterproofing, and 
          the documentation submitted  by  the  owner  to  substantiate  such
          improvements, the Commissioner finds that  the  Rent  Administrator
          properly concluded that the owner met the requirements of Section 9 






          AL 110041 RT, AL 110042 RT, AL 110043 RT, AL 110044 RT
          NYCRR 2522.4 of the Code and properly granted the appropriate  rent
          increase.  Whether or not said improvements were made for  purposes
          of a plan for the cooperative conversion of the subject premises is 
          not relevant to this proceeding.

          Regarding the tenants' contention that they should be  entitled  to
          the benefits of any tax  abatements  received  by  the  owner,  the
          Commissioner notes that the rent stabilized tenants of the  subject
          premises would not be entitled to rent  adjustments  based  on  tax
          abatements received by  the  owner  because  such  adjustments  are
          available only for work commenced  after  June  28,  1988  and  the
          record shows that work on the subject improvements commenced  prior
          to that date.

          With regard to  the  tenants'  allegation  that  the  cost  of  the
          installations was excessive, the Commissioner notes that the  owner
          submitted documentation substantiating its payment  of  the  actual
          cost and that the tenants did not introduce any evidence in support 
          of this allegation that the costs were excessive.  In view  of  the
          foregoing, it is the  opinion  of  the  Commissioner  that  further
          investigation by  the  Division  on  the  matter  of  cost  is  not
          warranted.

          Regarding  the  petitioner-tenants'  contentions   concerning   the
          plasterwork, the water pressure and temperature,  and  the  windows
          the record shows that the tenants' complaints are  insufficient  to
          overturn the building-wide order, and that the owner has  submitted
          sufficient documentary  evidence  to  show  the  improvements  were
          completed in a workmanlike manner.

          However, this order and opinion is issued without prejudice to  the
          tenants' right to file applications with the Division  for  a  rent
          reduction for any current  service  decreases  including  decreases
          involving plastering, water pressure or temperature or windows,  if
          the facts so warrant.






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

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,  denied,
          and that the Rent Administrator's order 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