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.: BB-110588-RT
                                         :  BB-130485-RT; BB-130584-RT
                                            BB-130585-RT; BB-130586-RT
       VARIOUS TENANTS,                     BB-130587-RT; BB-130689-RT
                           PETITIONER    :  BB-130690-RT; BB-130795-RT
     ------------------------------------X  BC-110119-RT; BC-130059-RT 
                                            BC-130185-RT
                                            
                                            DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                            DOCKET NO.: ZQCS 000892-OM


           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     The above-named petitioner-tenants  timely  filed  administrative  appeals
     against an  order  issued  on  January  28,  1987  by  the  District  Rent
     Administrator (Gertz Plaza, Jamaica,  New  York)  concerning  the  housing
     accommodations known as  110-07  73rd  Road,  Queens,  New  York,  various
     apartments, wherein the Administrator granted  major  capital  improvement
     (MCI) rent increases for the controlled and stabilized apartments  in  the
     subject  premises  based  on  the  installation  of  new  controllers  and
     selectors in the elevators at the premises.

     On appeal, the  petitioner-tenants  state,  in  substance,  that  (A)  The
     subject building was converted to a cooperative in 1983 and the  landlord,
     as owner of the unsold shares of the cooperative corporation's stock,  has
     no standing to seek an increase in petitioners' rent; (B)  The  work  done
     herein constituted repairs necessary to provide required services; and (C) 
     The work was done at the direction  f  and  for  the  benefit  of  tenant-
     shareholders.  In support of their contentions, the petitioners cited  the
     cases of Grand Leasing Company v. The New York State Division  of  Housing
     and Community Renewal, 509 NYS 2d 768 and Forest Gardens,etc v. Office  of
     Rent Control, 81 Misc. 2d 233, approved by the Court of Appeals in 41 NY2d 
     963.

     In response to the tenants' petition, the owner filed an  answer  stating,
     in substance, that (I) The owner of unsold shares is  legally  allowed  to
     collect an MCI rent increase; (II) The Grand Leasing  case  cited  by  the
     tenants applies to alternative hardship rent increase applications;  (III)
     The Administrative Code of New York City states that MCI increases can  be
     granted to owners, such term not being limited to owners of the  building;
     and (IV) The DHCR has always granted MCI increases  to  owners  of  unsold
     shares, who have all the obligations of ownership.

     After a careful  consideration  of  the  entire  evidence  of  record  the
     Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeals  should  be
     denied.  








          DOCKET NUMBER: BB-110588-RT; etal
     At the outset, the  Commissioner  notes  that  the  Administrator's  order
     herein has previously been affirmed in a decision issued on July  5,  1990
     under Docket No. BC-130002-RT.  In  that  decision  the  Commissioner  has
     already determined that the work herein qualifies as an  MCI  and  is  not
     regarded as ordinary  repair  and  maintenance  work.   In  addition,  the
     Commissioner had stated that the Grand Leasing case is not  applicable  to
     an MCI rent increase application.

     The Commissioner further notes that the Court in the  Grand  Leasing  case
     specifically stated that the Administrative Code of the City of  New  York
     does not require MCI applicants to be  owners  of  buildings,  but  merely
     owners.  In addition, the  other  case  cited  on  these  appeals  is  not
     relevant to the issues  herein  and  does  not  support  the  petitioners'
     contentions.  It should be noted that the Forest  Gardens  citation  above
     was incorrectly noted.  The correct citation is: Kew Gardens Hills Housing 
     Associates (Garage Units) v. Office of Rent Control.

     Furthermore, the  Commissioner  notes  that  normally,  if  a  cooperative
     corporation is eligible to file for an MCI increase, the application  must
     be filed by the managing  agent  of  the  corporation  on  behalf  of  the
     corporation and all  proprietary  lessees,  including  the  sponsor.   The
     requirement exists to  avoid  multiple  applications  for  the  same  MCI.
     However, in the instant  case,  where  the  record  does  not  disclose  a
     possibility  of  future  timely  filed  MCI  applications  by   subsequent
     investor-purchasers of one of the rent regulated apartments,  the  purpose
     behind the requirement was satisfied and there  is  no  justification  for
     disturbing the Administrator's findings below.

     Finally, the Commissioner notes that the MCI  increases  granted  for  the
     rent stabilized and  rent  controlled  tenants  herein  were  computed  in
     proportion to the benefits received by these tenants vis-a-vis  the  other
     residents of the building.  Thus, the increase  for  the  rent  controlled
     apartments was calculated according to the total number of  rooms  in  the
     premises and the computation of  the  increase  for  the  rent  stabilized
     apartments took into account the ratio of the stabilized apartments to the 
     total number of apartments at the premises.

     On the basis of the entire evidence  of  record,  it  is  found  that  the
     Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

     THEREFORE, in accordance  with  the  applicable  provisions  of  the  Rent
     Stabilization Law and Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations for the City 
     of New York, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

     ORDERED, that the administrative appeals  be,  and  the  same  hereby  are
     denied; and that the 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