DOCKET NUMBER: BF 210190-RT AND BF 230079-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 NOS.: BF 210190-RT
                                         :               BF 230079-RT
                                            DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
       JOAN SUNDEN                          DOCKET NO.: KCS 000817-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

        ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING IN PART THE PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
           REVIEW AND REMANDING THE PROCEEDING TO THE RENT ADMINISTRATOR

     The above named tenant filed a petition for administrative  review  of  an
     order issued on June 10, 1987, by a District Rent Administrator concerning 
     the housing accommodation known as  Apartment  10-A,  located  at  90  8th
     Avenue, Brooklyn,  New  York,  wherein  the  District  Rent  Administrator
     determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on a major 
     capital improvement (MCI).

     The Commissioner notes that the petitioner filed two copies  of  the  same
     petition and that they were  given  two  different  administrative  review
     docket numbers, BF 210190-RT and BF 230079-RT.  The Commissioner is of the 
     opinion that they should be consolidated for disposition.

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

     The owner commenced this proceeding on December  10,  1985  by  filing  an
     application for a rent increase based  on  a  major  capital  improvement,
     including the installation of an intercom  system  and  storm  and  screen
     windows, replacing 28 mullions and 17 sills, repair of tank and pump, roof 
     repair, replacing  sidewalk  canopy,  replacing  boiler  and  burner,  and
     pointing, at a total cost of $165,475.33.

     The owner certified that on December 3, 1985, it served each tenant with a 
     copy of the application and  placed  a  copy  of  the  entire  application
     including all required supplements and supporting documentation  with  the
     resident superintendent of the subject building.

     The tenant, Joan Sunden, objected to the owner's application  on  December
     16, 1985, alleging that the roof and walls  leak  in  many  rooms  of  the
     subject apartment, and some of the windows do not close properly.

     On June 10, 1987, the District Rent Administrator issued  the  order  here
     under review, finding that some of the installations  qualified  as  major
     capital improvements and allowing appropriate rent increases for rent 
     controlled and rent stabilized apartments.







     DOCKET NUMBER: BF 210190-RT & BF 230079-RT
     In the petition for administrative review, the tenant requests reversal of 
     the District Rent Administrator's order and alleges that  the  calculation
     for the number of rent stabilized apartments is incorrect; that  the  Rent
     Administrator improperly increased the rent due to the MCI  by  more  than
     6% per year; that the building's plumbing  and  the  tenant's  toilet  are
     defective and the roof and walls leak, and that  the  owner  replaced  her
     screen with a new one.

     The owner did not interpose an answer to the tenant's petition.

     After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion  that  this
     petition should be granted in part and  that  this  proceeding  should  be
     remanded to the Rent Administrator to calculate the subject tenant's  rent
     in accordance with this opinion.

     As the tenant has not established that the issue concerning the number  of
     rent-controlled, rent stabilized apartments in the subject building, which 
     she raises for  the  first  time  upon  administrative  review  could  not
     reasonably have been raised in the proceeding  before  the  District  Rent
     Administrator, it is outside the scope of  the  Commissioner's  review  in
     this proceeding.

     The tenant is mistaken  in  her  assertion  that  the  Rent  Administrator
     increased the rent by more  than  6%  per  year.   Pursuant  to  the  Rent
     Administrator's order the maximum rent increase the owner was entitled  to
     charge was 6% and the amount exceeding the 6% MCI rent increase was spread 
     out in similar increments and added to the legal regulated rent in  future
     years.  The temporary rent increase of 6%, commencing on March 1, 1987 and 
     terminating on March 1, 1988, was a retroactive MCI rent increase, for the 
     period from the February 1, 1986 effective date of  the  increase  to  the
     June 10, 1987 issuance date of the District Rent Administrator's order.

     Since the Rent Administrator did not grant an MCI rent  increase  for  the
     repair of the roof and the building's plumbing, the petition's allegations 
     of a leaking roof  and  a  defective  toilet  are  not  relevant  to  this
     proceeding.  The Commissioner notes, however, that this  order  is  issued
     without prejudice to the right of the tenant to file an application for  a
     decrease in rent if the facts so warrant.

     As the tenant has not established that the issue  concerning  the  screens
     which she raises for the first time upon administrative review  could  not
     reasonably have been raised in the proceeding  before  the  District  Rent
     Administrator, it is outside the scope of  the  Commissioner's  review  in
     this proceeding.  The Commissioner further notes that replacing the screen 
     was  part  of  the  storm  window  installation  qualifying  as  an   MCI.
     Therefore, even if the tenant had raised the issue concerning the  screens
     before the District Rent Administrator, the Commissioner would affirm  the
     Administrator's determination rearding their replacement.

     However,  the  tenant's  uncontested  assertion  that  the  walls  in  her
     apartment still leak even after  the  pointing  of  the  exterior  of  the
     building is sufficient grounds for disallowing the rent increase as to the 
     petitioner only, for pointing done on the building.








     DOCKET NUMBER: BF 210190-RT & BF 230079-RT
     Accordingly, for all the above-mentioned reasons, the  Commissioner  finds
     that the proceeding should be remanded to the  Rent  Administrator  for  a
     recalculation of the rent increase for Apartment 10A in view of  the  fact
     that the Commissioner is disallowing what portion of the rent increase for 
     apartment 10A attributable to pointing. 

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted  in  part,
     and that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is, remanded to the  Rent
     Administrator for the purpose of implementing this order  and  opinion  as
     hereinabove provided.  The order of the Rent Administrator remains in full 
     force and effect until a new order is issued upon the remand.

     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