BD 130115-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.:   
                                                  BD 130115-RT
          PEGGY        MAGIDSON        and         CATHY         WHITEHEAD,
                                                  DISTRICT             RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     QCS 000905-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On April 30, 1987, the above-named tenants filed a  petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on March 26, 1987  by  a
          District Rent Administrat r  concerning  various  housing  accom-
          modations in the premises known as 41-41 41st Street,  Sunnyside,
          New York, wherein the Administrator granted the owner s  applica-
          tion for a rent increase based on a major capital improvement. 

          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.

          The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an application  for
          a rent increase on the ground that there had been a major capital 
          improvement (MCI) at the premises, required  for  the  operation,
          preservation or maintenance of the structure.  Specifically,  the
          owner stated that it had expended $88,040.00 for the installation 
          of windows building-wide.

          On December 12, 1985, the owner certified that all  tenants  were
          served with a copy of the application, Notice  Form  RA-79N,  and
          answer forms, and that a copy of the tenant  review  package  had
          been placed in the superintendent's or resident manager's office.



          Of the six tenants who submitted answers to the owner's  applica-
          tion, one said that the windows had indeed  been  installed;  one
          consented to the increase; one tenant said that the  installation
          was done properly; two objected to  the  provision  allowing  the
          cost of the windows to be passed  on  to  the  tenants,  and  one
          tenant was silent.

          In an order dated March 26, 1987, the District Rent Administrator 
          granted the owner's  application  and  ordered  appropriate  rent







          BD 130115-RT
          increases for rent-controlled and rent-stabilized apartments.

          In their petition for administrative review, the tenants  request
          reversal of the administrator's order and allege,  in  substance,
          that they were not given proper notice  f  the  owner's  applica-
          tion; that the windows installed were defective and/or  installed
          in an unworkmanlike manner, and that although the  District  Rent
          Administrator granted the MCI rent increase for aluminum windows, 
          vinyl windows were in fact installed.

          The owner answered that, as prescribed by the Division of Housing 
          and Community Renewal (DHCR), all the tenants  were  served  with
          the necessary papers on  December  11,  1985,  and  that  it  was
          willing to make any necessary repairs and adjustments and in fact 
          had sent a certified letter to the Tenant  Committee  representa-
          tive requesting a list of windows to  be  repaired  or  adjusted.
          The owner enclosed a copy of the letter along with a  copy  of  a
          bill attesting to the fact that as of June 24, 1987, the  windows
          of five apartments had been serviced.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion  that  the  tenants'  petition
          should be denied.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are  authorized  by
          Section 2202.4 of the Rent a d  Eviction  Regulations  for  rent-
          controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of t e  Rent  Stabiliza-
          tion Code 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,  preserva-
          tion, 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, 
          and be required for the operation, preservation, and  maintenance
          of the structure, and it must replace an item whose  useful  life
          has expired.






          The District Rent Administrator correctly applied  the  foregoing
          criteria for major capital improvements  to  the  owner's  appli-
          cation and determined that the work described in the contract for 
          the installation of windows qualified for a rent  increase.   The
          owner submitted  bills  and  cancelled  checks  for  a  total  of
          $88,040.00 and this amount was used to compute the increase.

          The commissioner notes that vinyl windows are  acceptable  as  an
          M.C.I.

          The argument that the tenants were not notified  of  the  owner's
          application is belied by the fact that  several  tenants  did  in
          fact file answers to  the  application,  confirming  the  owner's
          statement that  it  did  properly  serve  the  tenants  with  the
          application and its contents, in accordance  with  its  certified
          statement.








          BD 130115-RT
          The Commissioner notes that  the  petitioners  herein  raised  no
          objections to the quality or adequacy of the installations  while
          this proceeding was before the Rent Administrator, although  they
          were afforded the opportunity to do so.  Accordingly, pursuant to 
          prior administrative decisions under the Rent and Eviction  Regu-
          lations and pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent  Stabilization
          Code, the tenants' allegations may not  be  considered  now  when
          offered for the first time on administrative appeal.

          The determination herein is without prejudice to the right of the 
          tenants or any one of them to file an appropriate application for 
          a reduction in rent based on the owner's  subsequent  failure  to
          maintain services, if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, the Rent and Rehabilitation Law, and the Rent and  Eviction
          Regulations for New York City, it is         

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  denied,
          and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                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