BC 410106 RT; BC 430033 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 410106 RT;
BC 430033 RT
VARIOUS TENANTS,
DRO DOCKET NO.: LCS 000672 OM
PETITIONER
----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS
The above-named petitioners timely filed Administrative Appeals
against an order issued on January 30, 1987 by the District Rent
Administrator (Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York) concerning the
housing accommodations known as 10 East 16th Street, New York,
New York, Various Apartments, wherein the Administrator granted
Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent increases for the controlled
and stabilized apartments in the subject premises based on the
installation of a new gas burner/boiler, elevator upgrading,
vestibule/lobby doors, roof, intercom system, and mailboxes.
The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing an MCI
application with the Administrator in August of 1985 based on the
work specified above and the painting of windows and fire
escapes. Various tenants objected to the owner's application on
several grounds.
The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein,
partially granted the owner's application. The Administrator
disallowed costs claimed for the painting of the windows/fire
escapes and roof repairs since these items did not constitute an
MCI. In addition, the Administrator disallowed certain costs
claimed for the elevator upgrading since they were not properly
substantiated.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenants contend, in substance, that
(A) The documentation provided by the landlord is
inadequate;
(B) some of the work done by the landlord (such
as mailboxes, intercom, vestibule/lobby
doors) constitute cosmetic improvements
designed to enhance the value of the building
for resale purposes;
BC 410106 RT; BC 430033 RT
(C) the entire expenditure for the boiler/burner
should be disallowed on the grounds that its
purpose was to enable the prior owner to sell
the building in 1983;
(D) the owner's claim for the elevator upgrading
may be inflated, as indicated by estimates
obtained by the tenants from various elevator
companies, including the one which did the
actual work in the building;
(E) the boiler/burner costs should also be
further substantiated;
(F) the burner/boiler installed in 1983 was
inadequate for the subject building,
resulting in problems having arisen with
respect to the heat and hot water services;
and
(G) several of the items claimed by the landlord
represent deferred maintenance.
In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner filed an answer
stating, among other things, that
(I) All of the work done herein qualifies as an
MCI; and
(II) every MCI listed in the owner's application
was accompanied by a signed contract, a
contractor's certification, and cancelled
checks.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative
appeals should be denied.
The record discloses that the owner substantiated its MCI
application in the proceeding below by submitting to the
Administrator documentation in support of the application,
including contractors' certifications, contracts, proposals,
invoices, cancelled checks, and the necessary governmental
approvals and sign-offs for the work in question. Furthermore,
all of the items allowed by the Administrator constitute MCI's
and whether or not they were done to enhance the value of the
building for resale purposes is irrelevant, as long as the useful
life of the replaced items had been exhausted.
With regard to the tenants contention of inflated costs, this
allegation is not substantiated by any documentation or written
estimates, and thus it does not negate the owner's documentation.
Finally, concerning the tenants' contention of problems with
heat and hot water services, this allegation was not raised in
the proceeding below and therefore cannot be considered herein.
On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that
BC 410106 RT; BC 430033 RT
the Administrator's order was correct and should be affirmed.
This order is issued without prejudice to the tenants filing
complaints with this Division based on a reduction in services,
if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
Rent Stabilization Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that the Administrative Appeals be, and the same hereby
are denied; and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is affirmed.
ISSUED:
------------------------
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|