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




                                                    





    

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