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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:  BC  110280-RO
                                              :  D.R.O. DOCKET NO.:
                                                 QS               000919-OM
                                                 Prior    Owner:     C.D.I.
                                                 Development, Inc.
              BRUCE R. FOX,                                    
                                                 Tenants: Various
                              PETITIONER      : 


               On March 20, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          February 13, 1987, by the Rent Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall
          Street, Jamaica,  New  York,  concerning  housing  accommodations
          known as various apartments, 216-07 and 216-09  Hillside  Avenue,
          Queens Village, New York, wherein the Rent  Administrator  denied
          the  application  for  a  rent  increase  on  a   Major   Capital
          Improvement (MCI) without prejudice to the right of the new owner 
          to file a rent application that is properly substantiated.

               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 the administrative appeal.  

               The prior owner commenced this proceeding on October 1, 1985 
          by filing an application for an MCI increase.   The  prior  owner
          did not identify itself as either the current managing  agent  or
          the prior owner.  

               In answer to the application, one  tenant  stated  that  the
          work was  done  by  the  prior  owner,  not  the  current  owner,
          petitioner herein.

               In  Order  Number  ZQS  000919-OM,  the  Rent  Administrator
          determined that the prior owner had  sold  the  building  to  the
          petitioner on August 19,  1985  and  that  the  October  1,  1985
          application by the prior owner was therefore defective.  The 

          Administrator also stated that certain specified improvements did 
          not qualify as an MCI, being ordinary repairs  or  work  done  in
          conjunction with  the  subdivision  of  the  subdivision  of  the
          complex.   Other  specified  improvements  were  stated   to   be
          improperly substantiated by supporting  documentation.   However,
          the specific deficiencies were not stated in the order. 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 110280-RO
               The Administrator further stated:

                    "Accordingly, the application is denied without
                    prejudice to the new owner filing a new application,
                    that is properly substantiated.  Any new application
                    filed for those items which might qualify as Major
                    Capital Improvements, should clearly designate which  
                    work was needed for the operation and preservation of
                    the  building  and  which   work   was   performed   in
                    conjunction with the sub-division of the complex." 

               Division records indicate that the new owner did not file  a
          new MCI application.

               In this petition, the  new  owner  contends  that  the  Rent
          Administrator's Order is incorrect and should be modified because 
          the prior owner, was in fact the managing agent at the  time  the
          application was filed, so that the filing  was  proper.   In  the
          alternative, the owner argues that even if the  prior  owner  was
          not the managing agent, a new owner is permitted to file  an  MCI
          application for work done by a prior owner. 

               In addition, the petitioner argues that all the improvements 
          had been properly substantiated and each  should  qualify  as  an

               No further proof of any improvement is  submitted  nor  does
          the owner submit any proof that the prior owner was the  managing
          agent when it filed the application.

               In answer to this petition, one  tenant  contends  that  the
          order should be upheld because the owner  has  failed  to  repair
          certain damage done to the tenant's apartment as a result of some 
          of the  various  installations  that  are  the  subject  of  this
          proceeding.  In addition,  the  tenant  alleges  certain  service
          violations.   A  second  tenant  alleges  that  certain  of   the
          improvements (new walks, new boiler) were necessitated solely for 
          the purpose of subdivision.  

               The Commissioner is of  the  opinion  that  this  proceeding
          should be remanded to the Rent Administrator.   

               The petitioner is correct that  a  managing  agent,  or  any
          other agent, can apply for an MCI increase on behalf of an owner.
          The owner is also correct that a current owner can apply  for  an
          MCI increase for work done by a prior  owner.   Accordingly,  the
          Commissioner hereby finds  that  the  Administrator  should  have
          substituted the new owner for the old owner  on  the  application
          and treated the so-reformed application as filed as of  the  date
          of the actual application.  On remand, the application should  be
          processed on its merits as if filed by the new owner,  petitioner

               The substantive  allegations  of  the  owner  regarding  the
          sufficiency  of   proof   are   to   be   resolved   on   remand.
          Parenthetically, the Commissioner notes that the checks submitted 
          by the owner do not add up to the alleged total expenditures  for
          certain improvements and for at least one improvement there is no 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 110280-RO
          proof as to how much of the total cost of the improvement for the 
          complex should be allocated to the building which is the  subject
          of this appeal.  In short, the record as  it  stands  is  clearly

               Finally, the Commissioner notes that for an  improvement  to
          qualify for an MCI  increase  it  must  be  "for  the  operation,
          preservation, and maintenance of the structure."  

               This Order is without prejudice to the rights of the tenants 
          to file service complaints, if the facts so warrant.  

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

               ORDERED, that this petition for  administrative  review  be,
          and the same hereby is, granted, to the extent of remanding  this
          proceeding to the Rent Administrator for further processing in 
          accordance with this order and opinion.  


                                          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