STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: BC 810296-RO
DISTRICT RENT ORDER
Y & R REALTY CORP. DOCKET NO.: NRLI 84/1016-39
OWNER PETITIONER : AC84/1032-45
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 20, 1987, the above-named petitioner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on February 13, 1987, 99
Church Street, White Plains, New York concerning the housing accommodation
known as 111 Franklin Avenue, New Rochelle, New York wherein the Rent
Administrator denied a rent increase for the installation of a new roof.
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 in the administrative appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an application for a major
capital improvement increase based upon the installation of a new roof.
In an order issued on September 25, 1985, the Rent Administrator denied
the application on the grounds that the useful economic life of a prior
roof installation had not been reached at the time the new roof was placed
on the building. The owner filed an appeal alleging that tenant-caused
damage to the previous roof had necessitated the installation of a new
roof only eight and one half years after the earlier installation. In an
order issued on October 28, 1986, the proceeding was remanded to the Rent
Administrator for a hearing and such further processing as was required.
After a hearing to ascertain the responsibility for the condition of the
prior roof the Administrator found that the owner had not properly
maintained the roof and was not entitled to a building-wide rent increase
for the roof installation. The Administrator affirmed the prior order
which had denied the owner's application.
The main basis of the owner's appeal is that the Administrator's decision
is not equitable. The owner contends that the tenants will have a new
roof for many years without paying of it. Had only another year a d one-
half elapsed, the installation would have been eligible for the increase.
The owner suggests crediting the tenants for the increase on the previous
installation and allowing the difference as a rent increase for this
In addition, the owner contends that the evidence was overwhelming that
roof leaks had developed due to the abuse of the roof by a number of
tenants. Nevertheless, the owner questions the evidence adduced at the
DOCKET NUMBER: BC 810296-RO
hearing at which the building superintendent testified and named only one
tenant who had used the roof. The owner asserts that the superintendent
was surprised by the question and reluctant to name names at that time but
now is able to provide eight or nine names of present or former tenants
who had used the roof.
In reply the tenant contend inter alia, that they should not have to pay
for a new roof when the previous roof was only eight and one half years
old. Moreover, the tenants challenge the owner's ability to name
additional tenants who had used the roof.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
The owner was well aware that the purpose of the hearing was to ascertain
whether the roof damage was caused by tenants or by poor workmanship or by
owner neglect. The owner was afforded an opportunity to submit evidence
to justify his allegation that roof damage was caused by tenants and
failed to do so. The owner cannot now excuse that failure and allege that
supporting evidence is available.
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. The arrangement suggested by the owner, a rent increase
reduced by the previous MCI increase is not authorized and does not meet
the requirements of either the Code or the Regulations. Accordingly, the
Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly denied the application.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations and the
Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and the
Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.