STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
-------------------------------------X ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: BI110219RT
JEAN CAUVIN RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: QCS00985OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 23, 1987, the above named petitioner-tenant timely
filed a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order
issued on August 13, 1987, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza)
concerning the housing accommodations known as 89-07 169th Street,
Jamaica, NY, apartment 2F, wherein the Rent Administrator
determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on
the installation of major capital improvements (MCIs).
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 this administrative appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on August 15, 1986, by
initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the
installation of the following items at a total cost of $148,736.60:
new windows, boiler/burner, new roof, ceiling insulation (6th,
Floor), replacement of eight lintels in courtyard, pointing and
waterproofing around courtyard from coping stones to sixth floor
On January 14, 1986 the owner served notice of application to the
tenants where one tenant (Apt. 2K) issued a response thereto
questioning the quality of the window installation.
The order of the Rent Administrator granted, in part, the owner's
application and authorized a rent increase for the new windows and
the boiler/burner upon a finding that the installations qualified
as major capital improvements. Disallowed by the Administrator was
the claimed cost of $13,570.60 for the ceiling insulation, pointing
and waterproofing and the installation of eight lintels in the
courtyard upon a finding that the installations did not constitute
a major capital improvement.
In this petition the tenant of apartment 2F contends, in substance,
that he did not receive notice of the owner's MCI application and
therefore, his right to due process was not honored.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BI-110219-RT
After a careful consideration of the entire record, the
Commissioner is of opinion that this petition should be denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent
controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization
Code for rent stabilized apartments. Under rent control, an
increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970, a
major capital improvement required for the operation, preservation,
or maintenance of the structure. 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. In this respect
the Commissioner notes that the work recognized in the
Administrator's order meets the definitional requirements of a
major capital improvement, and that the owner substantiated its
application by the submission of various supporting documentation
including copies of contracts, contractors' certifications,
cancelled checks and government approvals and sign-offs for the
installation and operation of the heating system.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the owner
correctly complied with the application procedures for an MCI.
Moreover, the record discloses that the owner certified to the
service of the petition upon all of the affected tenants, including
the named petitioner, in accordance with the procedure then in
affect. The tenant's allegation of a lack of notice is not
supported by the record which discloses that a response was
received thereto. As only one tenant in the building asserts he
was not served with the application until after the order was
issued, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the record is more
consistent with the conclusion that all tenants were served and had
the opportunity to respond thereto.
On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the
Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
the City of New York, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that the administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is
denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
Joseph A. D'Agosta