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

          -------------------------------------X  SJR 3936
          APPEAL OF                            :  DOCKET NUMBER: ART-13035-L
                 JIMINEZ ABEL,                 :  DISTRICT RENT ORDER        
                                               :  DOCKET NUMBER:  USC 000102-OM
                                   PETITIONER  :


          The above-named petitioner-tenant timely refiled  a  Petition  for
          Administrative Review against an order issued on June 13, 1986  by
          the District Rent Administrator, Gertz Plaza, Jamaica,  New  York,
          NY, concerning the housing accommodations known as 520 West  139th
          Street, New York, New York, various apartments.

          The order of the Administrator,  which  was  affirmed  in  appeal,
          granted in part  the  application  and  authorized  major  capital
          improvement rent increases for both the controlled and  stabilized
          apartments in the subject premises based on the 1984  installation
          of a new boiler/burner to replace one which was non-functional and 
          an intercom system.  Other claimed expenditures  relating  to  the
          repair of the vestibule doors were disallowed as not  constituting
          a  major  capital  improvement.   Said  order  was  supported   by
          contracts, contractors' certifications, cancelled checks, and  all
          requisite   governmental   approvals   and   sign-offs   for   the
          installation and operation of the heating system.

          Thereafter the Petitioner-tenant commenced  a  proceeding  in  the
          Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of  the  Civil  Practice  Law
          and Rules.  This resulted in an order of the  Court,  Mr.  Justice
          Elliot Wilk, remanding the proceeding to the Division for  further

          In the Article 78 petition the tenant contends, in substance, that 
          an Article 7-A Administrator is not an owner entitled to apply for 
          a major capital improvement rent  increase,  and  that  inadequate
          consideration was given to claims raised in the proceeding below 
          and on appeal with respect to defective conditions and  violations
          outstanding against the  subject  premises.   Submitted  with  the
          Article 78 petition are copies of  277  Housing  Maintenance  Code
          violations outstanding against the subject  premises  as  of  June
          1986 and a copy of a Civil Court order  dated  November  20,  1987

          DOCKET NUMBER: ART-13035-L
          substituting new co-administrators for the subject premises. 

          After a careful reconsideration of the entire record, as amplified 
          upon remand, the Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition 
          should be denied.

          The tenant's argument that  a  7-A  Administrator  lacks  standing
          before the Division of Housing and Community Renewal to apply  for
          a major capital improvement rent increase is without  merit.   The
          cases cited by the tenants, Foster v. New  York  Conciliation  and
          Appeals Board and Levine v.  Division  of  Housing  and  Community
          Renewal are not dispositive of this issue.  In the  cited  matters
          the Courts held, in effect,  that  the  CAB  and  DHCR  could  not
          enforce the Rent Laws against a 7-A Administrator  to  the  extent
          such enforcement would interfere  with  the  duties  of  such  7-A
          Administrator and the supervision of the Civil Court.

          Such decisions do not preclude a 7-A Administrator from seeking  a
          rent increase pursuant  to  the  applicable  Code  and  Regulatory
          provisions based upon the completion of items of work  which  fall
          within  the  definitional   requirement   of   a   major   capital
          improvement.  T e  replacement  of  an  old  and  concededly  non-
          functional heating system was a necessary and high  priority  step
          taken by the 7-A Administrator clearly required for the  continued
          operation preservation and maintenance of  the  subject  premises,
          without which the property could not have remained a  viable  part
          of  the  City's  housing  stock.   As  previously  stated  by  the
          Commissioner, the fact that the work which is the subject  of  the
          instant application (boiler/burner and intercom system)  was  paid
          for with rent monies turned over to the 7-A  Administrator  acting
          under the supervision of the Civil  Court  does  not  render  such
          improvements any less of a major capital improvement nor  does  it
          constitute an automatic bar to a rent increase,  if  otherwise  so

          Where,  as  in  the  instant   case,   a   court   appointed   7-A
          Administrator seeks to obtain a discretionary benefit in the  form
          of a rent increase permissible under the Code and Regulations, 
          such applicant must be held to the same standards and procedures 

          as any other owner seeking similar relief.  In this case the 
          record, as amplified,  discloses  that  a  7-A  Administrator  was
          appointed to operate the subject premises in  1983;  and  that  in
          1986, some three years into the 7-A Administrator's stewardship of 
          the premises  277  violations  remained  outstanding  against  the
          subject premises.  In addition, Division records indicate that the 
          7-A Co-Administrators, Disick and Anderson, appointed by the Civil 
          Court in 1987 continue to operate the building.

          What is equally evident from a review of current Division  records
          is  that  the  Administrators  have  pursued   remedial   measures
          regarding  many  of  the  conditions  and  a  current  report   of
          violations discloses that  only  19  of  the  previously  reported
          violations continue to  exist  consisting  chiefly  of  violations
          within individual apartments (many of  which  are  tenant  caused)
          rather than building-wide violations.  Given that  none  of  these
          violations constitute "current immediately hazardous violations of 
          any municipal, county, state of federal law which relates  to  the

          DOCKET NUMBER: ART-13035-L
          maintenance of such services" pursuant to  Section  2522.4(a)(10),
          the  Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion  and  finds  that  further
          investigation into those violations on a building-wide  basis  for
          purposes of negating the subject major  capital  improvement  rent
          increases (otherwise fully documented) is  inappropriate  at  this

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,  denied;
          and that the Commissioner's prior order and the order of the  Rent
          Administrator be, and the same hereby are, affirmed.


                                             ELLIOT SANDER
                                             Deputy Commissioner


                                               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BUREAU
                                                COVERING MEMORANDUM

          ARB Docket No.:  ART-13035-L (SJR 3936)

          DRO Docket No/Order No.:  ART 13035-L

          Tenant(s): JIMINEZ ABEL

          Owner:  7 A ADMINISTRATOR

          Code Section:  2522.4 AND 2242/6

          Premises:  520 WEST 139th STREET, NEW YORK, NY 


          Commissioner's prior order affirmed Major Capital Improvement rent 
          increase for a new heating system and intercom system installed in 
          1984 by a 7-A Administrator.  

          7-A Administrator found to have standing to file  MCI  application
          and condition of the  subject premises was such that  improvements
          were necessary for the operation preservation and  maintenance  of
          the structure.  

          While  7-A  Co-Administrators  continue  to  operate  the  subject
          premises,  the  record  discloses  they  have  taken   appropriate
          remedial  measures  and  only  19  of  277   previously   reported
          violations continue to exist chiefly with  respect  to  individual
          apartments, and are not of  such  a  building-wide  nature  as  to
          negate the major capital improvement rent increase.


          Processing Attorney:                                             

          Supervising Attorney:                                            

          Bureau Chief:                                                    

          Deputy Counsel:                                                  

          Deputy Commissioner:                                             

          Mailed copies of Order and Determination to:

          DOCKET NUMBER: ART-13035-L
                         Tenant's Atty.       
                         Owner's Atty.        

          Date:                    : by                                   


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