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. BD 130069-RT
                                         :  
                                            DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
       D. RAILEY & K. LAFALCIA              DOCKET NO.. QCS 000890-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On April 14, 1987 the above named petitioner-tenants filed a Petition  for
     Administrative Review against an order issued on March  10,  1987  by  the
     Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York  concerning
     housing accommodations known as 30/40-42 23rd  Street  and  30/44-46  23rd
     Street, Long Island City, New York, various accommodations.

     The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record  and  has
     carefully considered that portion of the  record  relevant  to  the  issue
     raised by the administrative appeal.

     This proceeding was commenced by the owner filing  an  application  for  a
     rent increase based on expenditures totaling $62,271.25 for major  capital
     improvements described as follows: installation of new boilers/burners and 
     new roofs, patch pointing of building exterior and pointing  of  parapets,
     fire escapes and stairway windows.

     Various tenants, including the subject tenants, submitted answers  to  the
     application.  The subject tenants, who reside in apartment 4F of  premises
     located  at  30-44  23rd  Street,  objected  to  the  rent  increase   and
     complained, among other things, that since the work was performed  on  the
     roof, water has been running down the living room wall and was causing the 
     plaster to fall from the living room and bathroom ceilings.   The  subject
     tenants subsequently advised that the  superintendent  had  plastered  the
     bathroom ceiling and painted over the spot leaking.

     In the order appealed herein, the  Rent  Administrator  approved  a  major
     capital  improvement  rent  increase  for  the  installation  of  the  new
     boilers/burners and the new roofs.  The Administrator determined that  the
     pointing  work  did  not  constitute  a  major  capital  improvement   and
     disallowed expenditures in the amount of $8,371.25 related thereto.

     In this petition, the tenants object to the rent increase contending  that
     there are still leaks and leak  related  damage  in  the  apartment.   The
     tenants further contend in substance that they  did  not  claim  that  the
     leaks were repaired but that "some plastering only was done."

     The owner did not submit a response to the petition.









          DOCKET NUMBER: BD 130069-RT
     The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding 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  law  for  rent  stabilized
     apartments.  Under rent control, an increase is warranted where there  has
     been since July 1, 1970 a  major  capital  improvement  required  for  the
     operation, preservation 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 record in the instant case indicates that to the extent recognized  by
     the Rent Administrator, the owner properly complied with  the  application
     procedures  for  major  capital  improvement  increases   and   the   Rent
     Administrator properly computed the appropriate  rent  increase  therefor.
     The tenants who acknowledged in the proceeding below that the  owner  took
     appropriate  corrective  measures,  have  not  established  by   objective
     evidence that the increases should be revoked.   In  this  respect  it  is
     significant to note that in the several years since the work was completed 
     no service complaints related thereto have been  filed  by  these  or  any
     other tenants.

     This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to this tenants'  right
     to file an application for  a  rent  reduction  based  on  a  decrease  in
     services, if the facts so warrant.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction  Regulations  and  the
     Rent Stabilization Law and Code, and the Emergency Tenant  Protection  Act
     of 1974, 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
                                       Acting 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