AR Docket No. BC 110048-RT
                                  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 
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE    ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: BC 110048-RT   
                                                
            MARSHA HABER,                        DRO DOCKET NOS.: 
                                                 QS 000609-OM; QS 000612-OM      
                                                 
                                PETITIONER     
          -----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition for  Administra
          tive Review against an order issued on January  28,  1987  by  the
          Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New  York
          concerning housing accommodations known as 80-08 135th Street, Kew 
          Gardens,  New  York,  Apartment  605,  wherein  the  Administrator
          granted a major capital improvement rent increase.

          The owner commenced  the  proceeding  below  by  filing  with  the
          Administrator applications for a major capital  improvement  (MCI)
          rent increase predicated  on  the  installation  of  new  windows,
          boiler/burner and a roof.
                                  
          The tenant  herein  responded  to  the  application  alleging,  in
          substance, that the owner has filed two separate MCI  applications
          in an attempt to evade the  6%  cap  on  the  collection  of  such
          increases; that she refused access  to  her  apartment  until  she
          obtained the owner's assurance that  the  improvements  would  not
          form the basis for a rent increase, which assurance was formalized 
          in subsequent lease renewal (not submitted); that the owner failed 
          to comply with  service  and  notice  requirements  and  that  the
          installation of the new heating system and roof has  not  resulted
          in an improvement in service.

          Thereafter the Administrator  issued  the  order  appealed  herein
          finding that the various installations qualified as major  capital
          improvements.   Said  order  was  predicated  upon  substantiating
          documentation submitted by  the  owner  including  copies  of  con
          tracts, contractors'  certifications,  cancelled  checks  together
          with  requisite  governmental  approvals  and  sign-offs  for  the
          installation and operation of the heating system.

          In this petition for administrative review the tenant  substantial
          ly reiterates her prior allegations and contentions.

          After a careful consideration of the  entire  record,  the  Commis
          sioner is of the 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






          AR Docket No. BC 110048-RT

          major capital improvement required  for  the  operation,  preserva
          tion, 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.   

          The tenant's allegation that  the  owner  failed  to  comply  with
          service and notice requirements is not supported by the record  as
          evidenced by the fact that the  tenant  actively  participated  in
          the proceeding before the Administrator.

          In addition, a check of Division records discloses  that  no  rent
          reduction order based on the owner's failure to maintain  services
          of a building-wide nature  was  outstanding  against  the  subject
          premises as of time of issuance of the Administrator's  order  nor
          have any service complaints been filed by the tenant herein either 
          prior to or subsequent to  the  issuance  of  the  order  appealed
          herein.

          The record indicates that the owner correctly  complied  with  the
          applicable  procedures  for  a  major  capital  improvement   rent
          increase and the Administrator  properly  computed  such  increase
          predicated on substantiated  costs  in  conformance  with  the  6%
          statutory restriction on the collection of increases of  the  type
          involved herein.  The owner is cautioned that violation of the  6%
          restriction on collectibility as set forth in the  order  appealed
          herein or when combined with other MCI orders may give rise  to  a
          complaint of rent overcharge.

          Turning to the tenant's contention that  she  should  be  exempted
          from the Administrator's order, the Commissioner notes that tenant 
          consent to a  major  capital  improvement  rent  increase  is  not
          required.  The tenant's conceded refusal to provide access to  her
          apartment until she extracted an assurance from the owner  not  to
          collect such increase as may be ordered by the Administrator  does
          not constitute grounds for  modification  of  the  Administrator's
          order or bar the  owner's  entitlement  to  collect  the  increase
          provided for therein.  Particularly  so  in  the  absence  of  any
          showing before the Administrator that the alleged  "assurance"  by
          the owner was based upon consideration or that the tenant  was  in
          any way prejudiced thereby.  The tenant has not  established  that
          the increase should be revoked.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent  Stabiliz
          ation Code, it is






          AR Docket No. BC 110048-RT



          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is denied; and 
          that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the  same  hereby
          is affirmed.

          ISSUED:




                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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