BL 210031-RT
                                  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.:             
                                                  BL 210031-RT
                 HOWARD DAVIS,                    
                                                  RENT      ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                  PETITIONER      AI 210195-OM
          ----------------------------------x     


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   
                                          

          On December 2, 1987, the above-named petitioner-tenant  filed  an
          Administrative Appeal against an order  issued  on  November  23,
          1987, by  the  District  Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall
          Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing  accommodations
          known as 207 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, N w  York,  various  apart-
          ments.

          The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator prop 
          erly granted a Major Capital Improvement  (MCI)  rental  increase
          to the owner based on the owner's installation  of  building-wide
          replacement windows and a bell and buzzer intercom.

          The owner applied for a rent increase based  upon  major  capital
          improvements on August 29, 1986.

          On April 7, 1987, the owner filed a Certification of  Service  of
          Notice to Tenants of MCI Rent Increase Application, which 
          certified that the owner served the subject  application  on  all
          affected tenants and, in addition, made the application available 
          at the superintendent's office.

          Ten of the sixty-two tenants of the subject  building  filed  an-
          swers to the owner's application in April  1987  alleging,  inter
          alia, that the owner did not paint around the window frames; that 
          the window locks are loose; that the owner did not obtain consent 
          for the installation; and that the superintendent did not make  a



          copy of the owner's application available to the tenants' associ 
          ation.  The tenant of Apartment 3-G further alleged that the  per
          window increase granted by the  District  Rent  Administrator  is
          excessive and untypical.

          The District Rent Administrator's  order,  appealed  herein,  ap-
          proved rental increases for the installation of aluminum replace 
          ment windows building-wide and a new intercom system.  The  rents
          of rent stabilized housing accommodations were increased by $6.31 







          BL 210031-RT
          per room, per month, predicated on a total approved MCI  cost  of
          $77,.940.00.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenant alleges, in substance, that  the
          tenants were denied access to the owner's application;  that  the
          new intercom system is  of  an  inferior  quality  and  that  the
          allowed costs therefor are unrealistically  high;  and  that  the
          rent computations on the back of the  District  Rent  Administra-
          tor's order did not take into account three commercial tenants in 
          the building.

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

          The record, which includes  responses  from  ten  tenants  below,
          supports the owner's certification that all affected  tenants  in
          the subject premises were duly served with notice of the  owner's
          application or had access to same and the Commissioner finds that 
          the tenants' responses were appropriately considered by the  Dis-
          trict Rent Administrator in determining the owner's application.

          With regard to the tenants' allegations that the cost of the  in-
          stallation was excessive, the Commissioner notes that  the  owner
          submitted documentation substantiating its payment of the  actual
          cost; that the tenants did not introduce any evidence in  support
          of their allegations that the costs were excessive; and that  the
          cost of the installation was  not  inconsistent  with  the  costs
          claimed by other owners for similar installations.   In  view  of
          the foregoing, it is the opinion of the Commissioner that further 
          investigation by the Division on the matter of costs is n t  war-
          ranted.

          The Commissioner notes that the owner listed 63  apartments,  in-
          cluding three professional apartments, and the  total  number  of
          rooms in the subject premises as 206 on the MCI application.  




          The District Rent Administrator  utilized  the  total  number  of
          rooms figure of 206 in determining the per room increase.  As the 
          number of rooms contained in the  three  professional  apartments
          was not deducted  from  the  total  number,  each  apartment  was
          ascribed its proportionate share of the total cost and the  regu-
          lated tenants cannot be found to have  been  prejudiced  by  this
          method of calculation.

          The Commissioner further notes that the tenants  did  not  allege
          improper installation of the bell and buzzer  system  before  the
          District Rent Administrator and such issue may not be raised  for
          the first time on appeal. In  addition,  the  tenants  failed  to
          show, on appeal, that the bell and buzzer intercom  system  is  a
          substandard system incapable of normal operation.  

          If, in fact, the system is in temporary disrepair this order  and
          opinion is issued without prejudice to the right of any  affected
          tenant to file a complaint of service decrease,  seeking  a  rent







          BL 210031-RT
          reduction, in which the tenant may claim that the intercom system 
          installed in the premises is defective and  not  operating  prop-
          erly.  If it is found that the intercom system in the premises is 
          defective, the tenant would be entitled to a rent  reduction  for
          such service decrease.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabili 
          zation Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,  denied
          and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                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