ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BH 110032-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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.: BH 110032-RT
: BH 110033-RT/BH 110034-RT
VARIOUS TENANTS OF 105-07 66TH ROAD, BH 110036-RT/BH 110240-RT
FOREST HILLS, NEW YORK
PETITIONERS : RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
------------------------------------X DOCKET NO.: QS 000907-OM
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING IN PART PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On various dates the above-named petitioner-tenants timely filed
administrative appeals against an order issued on July 31, 1987 by the
District Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York)
concerning the housing accommodations known as 105-07 66th Road, Forest
Hills, New York, various apartments, wherein the Administrator granted
major capital improvement (MCI) rent increases for the stabilized
apartments in the subject premises based on the installation of new
plumbing building wide, adequate rewiring, a new roof and pointing, and
elevator upgrading with selector and controller.
These petitions are being consolidated for disposition herein as they all
involve common issues of law and fact.
The owner commenced this proceeding on September 12, 1985 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on the installation of the
above-mentioned items at a total cost of $632,247.50.
Five tenants submitted objections to the owner's application.
The order of the Rent Administrator granted, in part, the owner's
application and authorized an increase for new plumbing, building-wide,
adequate rewiring, a new roof and pointing, and elevator upgrading
including controller and selector. Disallowed by the Administrator were
the unsubstantiated cost of $12,255.64 for plumbing; and the amount of
$6,187.50, which represents the sales taxes for the roof and pointing which
the Administrator determined did not constitute a major capital
improvement.
In their petitions, the tenants contend, in substance, that:
1. these rent increases violated the annual 6% limitation on MCI
increases as two prior MCI increases had already been granted
(ZQS 000780-OM and ZQS 000801-OM).
2. the owner failed to serve upon the tenants the requisite
application form RA-79, a Notice Form RA 79-N and three
copies of the answer Form RTP-3.
In response to the petitions, the owner contends, in substance, the
following:
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BH 110032-RT
1. all tenants were given notice of the MCI application and were
afforded an opportunity to respond. Additionally, the master
application was kept in the superintendent's office at 105-10
66th Avenue at all times. Some of the tenants registered
their objections to the rent increase, however the DHCR
found that their objections were not related to the installations.
2. he was aware that the 6% annual limitation had already been
reached, and therefore he would defer collecting the new
increase until February 1, 1988.
After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner is of
the opinion that these petitions should be granted in part.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by Section
2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized apartments.
Under rent stabilization, the improvement must generally be building-wide;
depreciable under the Internal Revenue Code, other than for ordinary
repairs; required for the operation, preservation, and maintenance of the
structure; and replace an item whose useful life has expired.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the owner, as per
the procedures in effect at the time of his application, certified that on
June 10, 1986 he provided to the tenants Notice to tenant forms, a copy of
the application and response forms. Additionally, the owner certified that
a copy of the Tenant Review package was available for review in the office
of the superintendent. Furthermore, ample proof is provided that the owner
served notice to the tenants as there were several written objections
registered by various petitioner-tenants in the proceeding below.
DHCR records indicate that two earlier MCI rent increases (Docket Number
ZQS 000780-OM issued September 17, 1986; Docket Number ZQS 000801-OM issued
January 29, 1987 and amended July 6, 1987) were authorized for the subject
premises with collection schedules as follows:
permanent rent increase: 4.29% collectible October 1, 1986
1.71% collectible February 1, 1987
3.34% collectible February 1, 1988
temporary rent increase: 3.58% collectible October 1, 1986
2.42% collectible February 1, 1987
0.95% collectible February 1, 1988
The order appealed herein authorized a permanent rent increase of 14.74%
(of the June 1, 1985 rent roll date) effective as of August 1, 1986,
collectible as follows:
permanent increase: 6.00% collectible June 1, 1987
6.00% collectible June 1, 1988
2.74% collectible June 1, 1989
temporary increase: 6.00% collectible June 1, 1987
6.00% collectible June 1, 1988
0.28% collectible June 1, 1989
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BH 110032-RT
Section 2522.4(a)(8) of the Rent Stabilization Code provides that the
collection of MCI increases "shall not exceed six percent in any year...
In no event shall more than one six percent increase... be collected in the
same year for the permanent, prospective rent increase, and no more than an
additional six percent increase for the temporary retroactive portion of
such rent increase."
Applying these principles to the facts at hand, it becomes apparent that
the collection schedules set forth in the Rent Administrator's order must
be modified as follows in order to conform with Section 2522.4(a)(8):
permanent rent increase (per apartment per month)
year date of effecuation percentage (of the June 1, 1985
rent roll date)
1 February 1, 1988 2.66%
2 February 1, 1989 6.00%
3 February 1, 1990 6.00%
4 February 1, 1991 0.08%
temporary rent increase (per apartment per month)
year date of effectuation percentage (of the June 1, 1985
rent roll date)
1 February 1, 1988 5.05% for 12 months
2 February 1, 1989 6.00% for 12 months
3 February 1, 1990 1.23% for 12 months
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, granted in part,
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
modified as hereinabove indicated, and that as so modified, said order be,
and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
