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 NO.:  BI130174RT
          APPEAL OF
                    MR. AND MRS. H. MARAK
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  AB110076OM
                                   PETITIONERS
          -------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On September 9, 1987, the above named petitioner-tenants timely 
          filed a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order 
          issued on August 14, 1987, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 41-42 Elbertson 
          Street, Elmhurst, New York, Apt. 311, 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 February 16, 1986 by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          installation of the following items at a total cost of $115,332.00:  
          thermal replacement windows, a new intercom, new elevator 
          controllers and new lobby entrance doors.

          Various tenants objected to the owner's MCI application, alleging, 
          in substance, that the elevator does not stop level with the floor, 
          that the new lock does not work well and that the new intercom was 
          inferior to the old system.  Additionally, the tenants contend that 
          the improvements constitute basic services and are the owner's 
          responsibility.

          The owner answered the tenants' allegations stating that initial 
          problems with the lock were repaired and that minor elevator 
          repairs are covered in a service contract.

          On August 14, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installations qualified as MCIs, 
          determining that the application complied with the relevant laws 
          and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted 
          by the owner, and allowing rent increases for rent controlled and 
          rent stabilized tenants.












          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BI-130174-RT

          The order of the Rent Administrator granted, in part, the owner's 
          application and authorized an increase based on total approved 
          costs of $109,432.00.  Disallowed by the Administrator was part 
          (5,900.00) of the claimed cost for elevator upgrading upon a 
          finding that the claimed cost was not properly substantiated.

          In this petition, the tenants contend, in substance, that the 
          elevators are always out of order and that the lobby entrance door 
          locks are always broken.

          After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner 
          is of the opinion that this petition 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.

          The record discloses that to the extent recognized by the 
          Administrator the owner substantiated its application to the 
          Administrator by submitting documentation in support of the 
          application including contractor's certification, copy of the 
          contracts, invoices, estimates and cancelled checks.  On the other 
          hand, the tenants have not submitted on this appeal any evidence to 
          support their allegations.

          Furthermore, the Rent Administrator denied two applications for 
          reductions in rent based upon building wide service complaints upon 
          an inspection on April 7, 1988 finding the elevators were 
          operational (Docket No. CA130017B) and upon an inspection on March 
          15, 1988 finding that front doors locks and elevators were 
          operating properly.  (Docket No. BI130036B). 

          Subsequent to these two orders on April 27, 1993, the Commissioner 
          granted the owner's appeal, Docket No. FG130241RO, of a rent 
          reduction order, Docket No. DK130021B, concerning elevators 
          sporadically not stopping level with the floor.  In the order for 
          Docket No. FG130241RO, the Commissioner noted that a search of the 
          Department of Buildings records revealed that there were no 
          violations against elevator operation issued while Docket No. 
          DK130021B was pending, which was prior to the June 28, 1991 
          issuance date.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenants allegations are 
          devoid of evidentiary support and does not disturb the 
          Administrator's finding.


                                          2






          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BI-130174-RT

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the tenants' 
          right to file an application for a rent decrease based on a 
          reduction in services, if the facts so warrant. 

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied; and 
          that the 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