Adm. Rev. Docket No.: BC 1130069-RT
                                 STATE OF NEW YORK
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

        APPEAL OF                              DOCKET  NOS.:  BC  1130069-RT
                                                            BC 130121-RT
             VARIOUS TENANTS,                               BC 130126-RT
                                                            BC 130267-RT    
                                               D.R.O. DOCKET NO.:
                              PETITIONER             QCS 000461-OM/848-OM

        The  above-named  petitioner-tenants  filed  timely  Petitions   for
        Administrative Review against an order issued on February 4, 1987 by 
        the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York  concerning
        the housing accommodations known as 82-60 116  Street,  Queens,  New
        York, wherein the Rent Administrator granted the owner's application 
        to increase rental  based  on  the  installation  of  major  capital

        The issue  in  these  appeals  is  whether  the  Administrator's  is

        The applicable  law  is  Section  2202.4  of  the  Rent  &  Eviction
        Regulations and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

        The owner commenced these proceedings by filing an  application  for
        major capital improvement rent increases, based on the  installation
        of a new roof;  new  entrance;  vestibule  and  yard  doors;  a  new
        intercom system and new aluminum windows.
        On February 4, 1987, the Administrator  issued  the  order,  herein,
        under appeal granting the owner's application based on substantiated 
        and allowable costs of $63,333.00.

        On  appeal  several  petitioners  raised  various  objections.   The
        petitioner argues that the roof installation was not an  improvement
        but merely replacement of old equipment which the owner had  allowed
        to deteriorate, and which required replacement, as water was seeping 
        into the apartments; they  also  assert  that  water  seepage  still
        occurs.  The petitioners also claim that window  installations  were
        defective  in  that  the   new   equipment   remained   uninsulated,
        unplastered and unpainted, and that the vestibule door  installation
        remained unfinished.  The petitioners also request that increases be 
        allowed  only  until  the  owner  has  recovered  the  cost  of  the

        The owner responded, in substance that a new roof  is  eligible  for
        major capital improvement rent increase and  that  new  entry  doors
        were installed properly and that the  owner  had  recently  finished
        doing minor cosmetic work around the door.  As to  the  windows  the
        owner pointed out that the window were  not  painted  as  they  were
        aluminum with a bronze anodized finish that the window  were  capped

        Adm. Rev. Docket No.: BC 1130069-RT
        around the center frame and caulked to make the windows air-tight.

        After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion  that
        the petitions should be denied.

        Section 2522.4 of the Rent  Stabilization  Code  provides  for  rent
        increase for the installation of major capital improvement if, among 
        other things, they are required for the operation, preservation  and
        maintenance of services.  Section 2202.4  of  the  Rent  &  Eviction
        Regulations contains similar provisions.

        A new roof, intercom system and new  windows,  and  new  doors  have
        previously been held to merit the criteria promulgated  pursuant  to
        the regulations to qualify as major capital improvement.

        A review of the record indicates  that  the  Administrator  properly
        determined the owner's application for rent increases based  on  the
        building wide installations and correctly determined the  amount  of
        the rent increase to the owner was entitled.

        The tenants assertion on appeal that the  owner  should  collect  an
        increase only until the owner be amortized the cost is not supported 
        by relevant provisions of the Law and regulations.

        Turning to the several allegations regarding the  adequacy  of  roof
        work, the Commissioner notes that there were  no  reports  below  of
        damage due to water seepage in the  new  roof.   As  there  were  no
        allegations made below, they may not be raised for the first time on 
        appeal.  Additionally, Division records  disclose  no  building-wide
        rent reduction orders based on the owner's failure to  maintain  the
        roof, or an application pending  at  the  time  the  order  appealed
        herein was issued.

        THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law  and  Code,
        the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, and Chapter 403 of  the
        Laws of 1983, as amended by Chapter 102 of  the  Laws  of  1984,  as
        implemented by Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

        ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby  are,  denied,
        and the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same  hereby
        is, affirmed.

                                        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