STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: BH130057RT
LIVINGSTON TENANTS ASSOC., INC. RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: AF130054OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 27, 1987, the above named petitioner-tenants timely filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on July
31, 1987, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing
accommodations known as 68-60 108th Street, Queens, 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
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 owner commenced this proceeding on June 6, 1986, by initially filing an
application for a rent increase based on the installation of the following
items at a total cost of $56,400.00: new oil burner and boiler, new heat
timer and concrete sidewalk and curb.
The Livingston Tenants Association, Inc. filed an answer to the owner's
application, alleging, in substance, that the MCI increase should not be
granted because work described in the application was not completed within
6 months as set forth in DHCR fact sheet H-4; that the heat timer and
concrete work do not qualify as MCIs; that the increase should not extend
beyond the 60 month amortization period; that the owner has not provided
essential services as set forth in Docket No. 2T47332/57 and C.A.B. Opinion
On July 31, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under review
finding that the installations qualified as MCIs, determining that the
application complied with the relevant laws and regulations based upon the
supporting documentation submitted by the owner, and allowing a rent
increase for rent controlled and rent stabilized tenants.
In this petition, the Livingston Tenants Association, Inc. contends, in
substance, that the MCI increase should not be granted due to
non-compliance by the owner with service substitution orders, Opinion No.
12,184 and Docket No. 2R43032/053; and that the effective date of the MCI
increase should be the date of the Rent Administrator's Order.
After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner is of
the opinion that this petition should be denied.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BH130057RT
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by Section
2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent controlled apartments
and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized
apartments. Under rent control, an increase is warranted where there has
been since July 1, 1970 a major capital improvement required for the
operation, preservation, or maintenance of the structure. 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.
Section 2202.3 of the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations provides
in pertinent part that a landlord shall not be entitled to an increase in
the maximum legal rent where a landlord fails to provide essential
Section 2522.4(a)(13) of the Rent Stabilization Code provides in pertinent
part that the Division shall not grant an owner's application for a rent
increase for the installation of an MCI, in whole or in part, if it is
determined by the Division prior to the granting of approval to collect
such increase that the owner is not maintaining all required services.
The evidence of the record in this instant case indicates that the
Livingston Tenants Association filed an application for diminution of
building-wide services, Docket No. 34088-B and Docket No. 2T473325/78 on
the grounds security personnel were no longer supplied by owner. The C.A.B
Order and Opinion No. 12,184 (April 17, 1980) and the Rent Administrator's
Docket No. 2R43032/53 (March 27, 1980) ordered substituted security
service, including a closed circuit TV security system accepted by
agreement between the owner and 100% of the rent controlled tenants and 87%
of the rent stabilized tenants.
On May 13, 1987 the Livingston Tenants Association filed a complaint of
building-wide Decrease in Services, Docket No. BE 130103-B, alleging that
the owner was in non-compliance with elements of the substitution of
The Rent Administrator denied the Tenants Association's complaint based
upon inspections finding that services had been resolved.
The Livingston Tenants Association filed a Petition for Administrative
Review (PAR), Docket No. DJ 130294-RT, against the Rent Administrator's
order, Docket No. BE 130103-B. The Commissioner rejected the petition.
The Livingston Tenants Association refiled its PAR, Docket
No. EB 130377-RT, which the Commissioner dismissed.
As the record indicates, the Commissioner finds no outstanding order of a
building-wide reduction in services and therefore, affirms the Rent
Administrator's Order in the instant case.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BH130057RT
As for the Livingston Tenants Association's objections to the effective
dates of the order, the Commissioner notes that for rent controlled
apartments, the effective date of the MCI increase is the first rent
payment date after the issuance of the Administrator's order.
The effective date of the MCI increase for tenants in stabilized apartments
is the first rent payment date one month after certification of service of
the owner's application on the tenants.
Lastly, the Commissioner deems it appropriate to note that the New York
Court of Appeals has held that a rent increase granted for the installation
of an MCI may become a permanent part of the rent structure.
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 Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA