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




                                                    

    

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