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

          -------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF
                    JEAN CAUVIN                    RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  QCS00985OM


          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 
          is affirmed.

                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                        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