BF 110279 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
APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:
                                        BF 110278 RT BF 110279 RT

    VARIOUS TENANTS OF                  BF 110280 RT BF 110281 RT
    21-45 28TH STREET,                  BF 110282 RT BF 110283 RT
                                        BF 130011 RT  BG 110194 RT

                                        DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET NO.:
                                        AC 130125 OM
                      PETITIONERS
-----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
     The Commissioner has consolidated these proceedings for purpose
of  decision  as  all contain common issues of law  and  fact.   The
Commissioner  initially notes that the appeals  in  Docket  Nos.  BF
110278-RT,  BF 110279-RT, BF 110280-RT, BF 110281-RT, BF  110282-RT,
and  BF  110283-RT were originally rejected by the Commissioner  for
errors  in  form.  These rejections were later found  to  have  been
erroneous.   Accordingly, these proceedings are hereby reopened  and
will be decided herein.

      The above named petitioner-tenants filed timely Petitions  for
Administrative  Review  against an order of the  Rent  Administrator
issued  June  10, 1987.  The order concerned housing  accommodations
located   at   21-45   28th  Street,  Astoria,  N.Y.   wherein   the
Administrator granted, in part, the owner's application for  a  rent
increase  based  on  the installation of major capital  improvements
(MCI).

       The  Commissioner  has  reviewed  the  record  and  carefully
considered  that  portion relevant to the  issues  raised  by  these
appeals.

     The former owner commenced this proceeding on February 28, 1986
by filing an application for rent increase based on the installation
of  major  capital  improvements to wit--new windows  building-wide,
front  chain  link fence, boiler repair, pointing and  waterproofing
and  a  new  roof at a total cost of $20,345.61.  The current  owner
filed   a  report  of  change  of  identity  of  landlord  with  the
Administrator on May 21, 1986. On January 23, 1987 the current owner
certified  that  each tenant had been served  with  a  copy  of  the
application  and  afforded an opportunity to respond.   Two  tenants
filed  responses  with the Administrator.  One complained  that  the
pointing  and  waterproofing were not done in a workmanlike  fashion
and  also stated that she preferred the older wooden windows to  the
new  thermal  ones.   The other tenant voiced no  objection  to  the
installations.  On December 31, 1986 the Administrator requested the
current owner provide the following information: the certificate  of
service to the tenants and the contract for the window installation.
The  Administrator  inquired as to why the amount  claimed  for  the
windows  was  $2,000 less than that set forth in the contract.   The
owner  responded to the Administrator's inquiry on January 23,  1987
and provided the required information

      The  Administrator issued the order here under review on  June
10, 1987.   The following amounts were disallowed:

               Chain link fence -- $   850.00
               Boiler repair ----- $   998.61
               Pointing and
               waterproofing ----- $ 3,075.00
               
The  total  allowable cost of the improvements  were  calculated  at
$15,422.00  and the Rent Administrator ordered a rent  increase  for
rent controlled and rent stabilized tenants.

     Eight tenants have filed appeals from the Administrator's order
alleging  various defects in the installations and  requesting  that
the   Administrator's order be revoked.  Six of these  appeals  were
rejected  by  the  Commissioner as stated above.   The  owner  filed
answers  to the other two, noting that the tenants in one  apartment
had  vacated  on  October  31, 1987.   With  regard  to  the  second
petition, the owner offered to paint the tenant's window moldings in
response to her complaint.

      After  careful  review  of the evidence  in  the  record,  the
Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions must be denied.

      Pursuant  to  9  NYCRR  2208 and 2529.6  the  Commissioner  is
limited,  in  the  consideration and decision of  an  administrative
review  proceeding, to facts and evidence presented before the  Rent
Administrator.  Petitioners Lauer, Cohen, Daponte, Granato, DiPaola,
Walchak and Jordan did not file objections before the Administrator.
Petitioner Spirakis did respond below but raised no objection to the
window installation other than to state that she preferred the old
wooden windows as the new ones were cold. On appeal, Spirakis states

that the windows are "worthless" as the sills were ruined from water
drippings  and, furthermore, that the windows could not be  properly
locked.   As  the  petitioner did not raise this  claim  before  the
Administrator, she is barred from raising it at this time.

     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
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, preservation,
or  maintenance  of  the structure.  Under rent  stabilization,  the
improvement must be generally 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  owners
correctly  complied  with  the application  procedure  for  a  major
capital   improvement  and  that  the  Rent  Administrator  properly
computed  the  appropriate rent increases.   The  tenants  have  not
established that the rent increase should be revoked.

      This  order  and  opinion is issued without prejudice  to  the
petitioners'  rights  as  they may pertain to  applications  to  the
Division for reductions of rent based upon diminutions of services.

      THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and
Rent and Eviction Regulations it is

     ORDERED, that Docket Nos. BF 110279 RT, BF 110280 RT,
BF 110281 RT, BF 110282 RT, and BF 110283 RT be, and the same hereby
are, ordered reopened for decision herein, and it is further

      ORDERED,  that these proceedings be, and the same hereby  are,
denied  and  that the 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