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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE      DOCKET Nos.:  BG110271RT,
          APPEALS OF                               BG110272RT,   BH130117RT
                    DONALD RYAN, 
                    MONICA FAYE FELL, &            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                    PATRICIA O'TOOLE,              DOCKET NO.:  QCS000938OM

                                   PETITIONERS
          -------------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above named petitioners-tenants timely filed Petitions for 
          Administrative Review (PARs) against an order issued on July 9, 
          1987, by the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 25-41 30th Road, Astoria, New York, 
          various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that 
          the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on various major 
          capital improvements (MCIs).

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same order and 
          involve common issues of law and fact.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on December 10, 1985 by 
          initially filing an application for an MCI rent increase predicated 
          on the installation of various improvements at a total claimed cost 
          of $132,500.00.

          The  Rent Administrator's order appealed herein, granted, in part, 
          the owner's application and authorized an increase based upon the 
          installation of a new boiler/burner, new roof and 
          pointing/waterproofing at a total approved cost of $111,000.00.  
          Disallowed by the Administrator were the installations of concrete 
          sidewalk, stoop and fence and painting fire escapes upon finding 
          that they do not constitute major capital improvements.

          On appeal, the petitioners-tenants request reversal of the Rent 
          Administrator's order and contend, in substance, that the rent 
          increase granted is unfair and unjust; and that a 12% increase is 
          out of line based on the past record of tenants' complaints, 
          violations and summons received (Apt. 1D); that the building is in 
          serious violations of safety codes, including:  elevator, 
          electrical, fire safety and basic services; that the new oil burner 
          and boiler fail to deliver adequate heat and hot water throughout 
          the calendar year; and that the roof was only installed because of 
          severe leaking forcing the landlord to comply with standard 
          building codes (Apt. 3H); and that the painting of fire escapes, 
          stoop and fence and roof were installed several years  ago (Apt. 
          5G).













          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. BG-110271-RT, BG-110272-RT, BH-130117-RT

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that these administrative appeals 
          should be denied.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized 
          apartments.  Under rent stabilization, the improvement must 
          generally be building-wide; depreciable under the Internal Revenue 
          Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required for the operation, 
          preservation, and maintenance of the structure; and replace an item 
          whose useful life has expired.

          With respect to the contention of the tenant in Apt. 1D that a 12% 
          increase is out of line, the Commissioner notes that there is a 
          statutory limitation on collectibility of MCI rent increases of 6% 
          per year for the permanent, prospective rent increase, and no more 
          than an additional 6% increase for the temporary retroactive 
          portion of such rent increase.  This determination is without 
          prejudice to tenants' right to file an individual complaint of rent 
          overcharge, if the facts so warrant.

          Regarding the tenants' contention that the subject building is in 
          serious violation of safety codes, a review of Division's records 
          disclose that said violations (59) do not reflect the existence of 
          any immediately hazardous conditions.  In addition, there are no 
          rent reduction orders based on the owner's failure to maintain 
          services of a building-wide nature outstanding against the subject 
          premises.

          The Commissioner notes that the objection regarding the adequacy of 
          the boiler/burner now being raised for the first time on 
          Administrative Appeal by the tenant in apt. 3H was not raised while 
          the owner's application was pending before the Rent Administrator 
          even though the tenant was afforded the opportunity to do so.  
          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the allegation may not now 
          be considered herein.  This determination is without prejudice to 
          the right of the tenant filing an application with the Division for 
          a rent reduction based upon a decrease in services, if the facts so 
          warrant.

          As to the contention of the tenant in Apt. 3H that the new roof was 
          only installed because of severe leaking, it is the recognized 
          position of the Division that the fact work was performed due to a 
          necessity does not constitute a bar to an MCI rent increase, if the 
          owner otherwise so qualifies.  Moreover, the record in the instant 
          case, which includes copies of various proposals, invoices, 
          contractors' certifications, cancelled checks, governmental 
          approvals and sign-offs, indicates that the owner correctly 
          complied with the applicable procedures for major capital 
          improvements.








          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. BG-110271-RT, BG-110272-RT, BH-130117-RT

          Turning to the contention of the tenant in Apt. 5G, the 
          Commissioner notes that no increase was granted for the 
          installations of painting fire escapes and stoop/fence and that 
          prior to August 1, 1987, there was no limitation of time to file an 
          application for an MCI increase.

          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:



                                                       ____________________
                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                        Deputy Commissioner































                                          3






    

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