BC 130045-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 130045-RT            
                    A. T. GEYER,       
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER     QCS 000888-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On March 3, 1987, the  above-named  petitioner-tenant,  filed  an
          Administrative Appeal against an  order  issued  on  February  6,
          1987, by  the  District  Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall
          Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommoda-
          tions, known as 35-53 82nd Street,  Jackson  Heights,  New  York,
          Apartment 1-H.

          The issue herein  is  whether  the  District  Rent  Administrator
          properly determined the owner's Major Capital  Improvement  (MCI)
          application for a rent increase based upon the installation of  a
          new boiler in the subject building.

          On February 6, 1987, the District Rent Administrator  issued  the
          order here under review, finding that the installation  qualified
          as a major capital improvement, determining that the  application
          complied with the relevant laws and regulations  based  upon  the
          supporting documentation submitted by  the  owner,  and  allowing
          appropriate rent increases for rent controlled a d  rent  stabil-
          ized apartments.

          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 petition for review.



          On appeal, the petitioner-tenant requests reversal  of  the  Dis-
          trict Rent Administrator's order  alleging,  in  substance,  that
          tenants should not be required to pay rent increases for a boiler 
          because the owner is already  required  by  law  to  provide  the
          equipment.  The tenant further alleged  that  her  rent  has  in-
          creased $150.00 per month over a five year period  and  that  the
          total of such rent increases is excessive.

          The owner did not file an answer to the tenant's appeal.







          BC 130045-RT

          After a careful consideration of the entire  evidence  of  record
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          The District Rent  Administrator's  order  of  February  6,  1987
          stated:

                    "Various  tenants  responded  to  the   owner's
                    application, a d  objected  to   a   rent   in-
                    crease.   However,  there  were  no  objections
                    pertinent to the installation."

          The Commissioner finds that the petitioner's  assertions  in  her
          answer of December 18, 1985 and  on  appeal  are  irrelevant  and
          cannot support a reversal of the  District  Rent  Administrator's
          order which granted an MCI increase based up n  the  owner's  in-
          stallation of a new boiler.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are  authorized  by
          Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent con 
          trolled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the  Rent  Stabilization
          Code for  rent  stabilized  apartments.   The  subject  apartment
          herein  is  rent-stabilized.   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 in the instant case indicates that the owner  properly
          complied with the application procedures for a major capit l  im-
          provement and the District Rent Administrator  properly  computed
          the appropriate rent increases.  The tenant has  not  established
          that the increases should be revoked.







          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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:



                                                                           
                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Deputy Commissioner









          BC 130045-RT
                                          
    

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