DHCR Decisions
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.: BD430150RT
:
VARIOUS TENANTS OF RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
27 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH DOCKET NO.: LCS000294OM
NEW YORK, NY PETITIONERS :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 4, 1987, the above-named petitioner-tenants timely filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on
March 2, 1987, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the
housing accommodations known as 27 Washington Square North, New
York, New York, various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator
determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on
the installation of a major capital improvement (MCI).
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 this administrative appeal.
The Commissioner notes that the tenants' PAR was inadvertently
assigned two docket numbers, one of which (BE430320RO) has an
improper owner designation.
The owner commenced this proceeding on October 24, 1984, by filing
an application for a rent increase based on the installation of a
new roof at a total cost of $6,048.50.
On March 2, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review, finding that the installation qualified as an MCI,
determining that the application complied with the relevant laws
and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted
by the owner, and allowing rent increases for rent controlled and
rent stabilized tenants.
In this petition, the tenants contend, in substance, that the roof
was improperly completed as the ceilings and walls in some
apartments continue to leak; an engineers report assessing the roof
work states that the roof appeared to have been the rent increase
was improperly calculated made permanent and exceeds the six
percent annual limitation for rent stabilized tenants and the 15%
annual limitation for rent controlled tenants; and the work
constitutes ordinary repairs and deferred maintenance rather than
an MCI.
After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner
is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BD430150RT
It was the policy of the DHCR that a roof cap sheet of the type
involved herein qualified as a new roof at the time the work in
question was performed. While Policy Statement 91-2 imposes more
stringent standards, the Commissioner notes that said Policy
Statement is effective March 26, 1991, several years after the roof
work in question was performed.
The record discloses that the owner substantiated its application
in the proceeding below by submitting to the Administrator
documentation in support thereof, including copies of the contracts
for the improvement, the contractor's certification and cancelled
checks.
Furthermore the records of the Division disclose that no rent
reduction order has been issued against hte subject premises based
on the owner's failure to maintain services of a building-wide
nature nor was nay such complaint pending at the time the order
appealed herein was issued. The tenants have failed to establish
that the Administrator's order should be revoked.
As to the tenants' contention pertaining to the permanent nature of
the increases granted, the New York Court of Appeals has concluded
that the Rent Stabilization Law authorizes this Division to grant
permanent rent increases for MCI's and that the law does not limit
the time during which the increases can be imposed. In the Matter
of Ansonia Residents Association, et al., v. DHCR et al., 75 N.Y.
2d 206, 551 N.Y.S. 2d 871 (1989).
With respect to the six percent rent increase limitation, the
Administrator properly determined the dollar amount of the monthly
rent adjustment in accordance with the total number of rooms in the
building as required by the Rent Stabilization Code [see Section
2522.4(a)(12)]. Nevertheless, the order appealed herein limited
the annual collection of the permanent rent increase to six percent
(in addition to the six percent temporary increase) of the rent
listed on the Schedule of Monthly Rental Income submitted with the
owner's MCI application. The corresponding limitation for rent
controlled apartments is fifteen percent.
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the tenants'
right to file individual rent overcharge complaints with this
Division, if the facts so warrant.
Finally with regard to the tenants' contention that they should not
have to pay an MCI increase for court ordered repairs, the
Commissioner notes that it is the well established position of the
Division and the courts have so held, that the fact that certain
work remedies building violations or complies with an
administrative or court order does not constitute grounds for the
denial of the application, provided the work performed otherwise
qualifies as an MCI and the owner establishes an entitlement to a
rent increase therefor.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BD430150RT
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the tenants'
right to file applications for a rent decrease based on a decrease
in building-wide or individual apartment services, including any
current roof leaks, if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, 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.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|