ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BK 410297 RO
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.:
BK 410297 RO
:
DISTRICT RENT ORDER DOCKET
NO. AG 410222 OM
GRACE BLAKESLEE
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 9, 1987 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
October 27, 1987 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, NY concerning housing accommodations known as
327 East 52nd Street, New York, New York, Various Apartments,
wherein the administrator granted in part the owner's application
and authorized major capital improvement (MCI) rent increases.
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 Petition for Administrative
Review.
This proceeding commenced from an application initially
filed with the Division on July 10, 1986 based on the
installation of (1) a new gas boiler, and (2) windows caulked and
fire-escapes and windows painted. On September 23, 1986 the
owner submitted a certification of the services of application on
each of the tenants.
Only one of the six tenants occupying the subject eight unit
building responded to the owner's MCI application, objecting
thereto on grounds that the work performed consisted of ordinary
maintenance, rather than a MCI.
On October 27, 1987 the Rent Administrator issued the order
(AG 410222 OM) here under review granting the application, in
part, with the exception of the claimed cost for caulking of the
windows and the painting of the fire-escapes and windows, which
the Administrator determined did not meet the definition of the
MCI.
In this Petition for Administrative Review the owner
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BK 410297 RO
contends, in substance, that the Rent Administrator incorrectly
disallowed the cost of the work performed in connection with the
windows and fire escapes in that the Administrator failed to
adhere to DHCR's Operational Bulletin which permits an increase
for the reasonable substantiated cost of other improvements
completed within 6 months of a MCI installation and which also
improved, restored or preserved the quality of the structure;
that the administrator failed to consider the number of tenants
(5) who consented to the requested rent increase, instead
focusing on the one tenant who objected thereto; and that the
effective date of the Administrator's order should have been
calculated from July 1986 when the application was filed.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition
should be denied.
The disallowed improvements, although performed within six
months of the MCI does not meet the standards set forth in DHCR's
Operational Bulletin 84-4 and the Code which permits a rent
increase for other improvements which are directly related to a
qualifying MCI.
In this connection the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the work in question, i.e, painting of windows and fire escapes
and related caulking is in the nature of ordinary maintenance and
cosmetic repairs and bears no direct relationship to the heating
installation in the basement of the subject premises.
Section 2522.4(a)(2)(iv) provides that with the approval of
the DHCR there may be rent increases for other improvements "with
the express consent of the tenants in occupancy of at least 75
percent of the housing accommodations." Although the owner has
submitted the consent of five tenants this constitutes less than
the required 75 percent of the total (8) housing accommodations
in the subject building. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the exterior maintenance of
the building such as painting and caulking is a required service
in the nature of repairs for which an additional rent increase is
not warranted.
Concerning the issue of the effective date of the
Administrator's order, the Commissioner notes that it was
properly made effective on October 1, 1986, the first rental
payment date, 30 days after the owner completed the filing of the
application by certifying to the service of same upon the tenants
pursuant to operating procedures then in effect.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds the Administrator's
order is correct and should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied; and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BK 410297 RO
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
