BG 110217 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. BG 110217 RT
: DRO DOCKET NO.ZAB-110145-OM
AMI CHRYSLER, TENANT REPRESENTATIVE
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 22, 1987, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on June
19, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,
Queens, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 69-
51, 55, 59, 63, 67, 71 136th Street, Queens, New York, Various
Apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the
owner was entitled to a rent increases based on a major capital
improvement.
The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order
was warranted.
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 in April 1986, by filing
an application for a rent increase based on the major capital
improvement of the installation of a new oil burner and boiler at
a total cost of $30,000. The owner submitted all the required
documentary evidence in support of its application.
In answer to the application, the tenants stated in substance
that the boiler/burner installation should be considered ordinary
repairs and maintenance and that the timing of the installation is
connected to the conversion of the subject premises to cooperative
ownership in that the owner hopes to receive higher sales prices
for the apartments. The tenants further stated that they received
an Offering Plan for the cooperative conversion in March 1986.
In Order Number ZAB-110145-OM, the Rent Administrator found
that the installation qualified as a major capital improvement in
that the application complied with the relevant laws and
regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted by
the owner, and the Rent Administrator accordingly allowed
BG 110217 RT
appropriate rent increases for rent stabilized apartments.
In this petition, the tenant reiterates the contentions in
the answer submitted below, states that the answer was not
properly considered by the Rent Administrator and contends that
there is insufficient heat and hot water since the new boiler was
installed.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition 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 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 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 the owner
correctly complied with the application procedures for a major
capital improvement and the Rent Administrator properly computed
the appropriate rent increases. The tenant has not established
that the increase should be revoked.
The tenant who filed the instant petition did not raise any
problems regarding the functioning of the boiler when the matter
was before the Administrator. The new boiler had been in place
several months before the owner's rent increase application was
filed, affording the tenants ample opportunity to become aware of
any defects and bring them to the attention of the owner and the
Administrator. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that it is
inappropriate to consider for the first time in this
administrative appeal the tenant's allegation that there is now
insufficient heat and hot water in the subject premises.
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the
tenants' right to file an application for a rent reduction for
diminution of services should the facts so warrant.
Further, the Commissioner finds that the tenant's contention
that the installation of a new oil burner and boiler should be
considered ordinary repairs is without merit. Such installation
of new equipment clearly qualifies as a major capital improvement.
Finally, the fact that the owner may have been influenced in its
decision to install the new oil burner and boiler by the
anticipated cooperative conversion of the subject premises does
not bar the granting of a major capital improvement rent increase
for the installation.
BG 110217 RT
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and
the same hereby is, denied, and, that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
