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
           
             
                                          
    

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