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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NO.: BH410297RT
          APPEAL OF
                      Jose Luciano & 
                      Various Tenants
                      of 229 W. 101 St. 
                      New York, NY
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                   PETITIONER     DOCKET NO: LCS000658OM
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named petitioner-tenants timely filed a Petition for 
          Administrative Review against an order issued on July 28,1987 by 
          the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 229 West 101 Street, New York, New York, 
          various apartments, wherein the Administrator granted, in part, the 
          owner's application and authorized an increase predicated on the 
          installation of a new boiler/burner and new mailboxes at a total 
          approved cost of $30,590.00. Disallowed by the Administrator were 
          claimed costs of $27, 390.00 upon findings that apartment splitting 
          and steel stairs did not qualify as major capital improvements 
          (MCIs) and that the cost of the entrance door had not been properly 
          substantiated by supporting documentation.

          On appeal, the tenants request reversal of the Administrator's 
          order and contend, in substance, that the installations of a new 
          burner and mailboxes were not improvements but were done because 
          the old ones were broken beyond repair; that the mailboxes were not 
          relocated but are in the same place that they were originally; that 
          all the work was done due to a court order; and that of all the 
          violations that the court ordered the landlord to fix, some still 
          have not been done, like the front steps of the building entrance 
          which instead of being replaced have only been patched and are 
          cracking again.

          After a careful consideration of the entire record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent 














          Adm. Rev. Docket No. BH410297RT

          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. The item for 
          which a MCI rent increase was granted were properly found to meet 
          the definitional requirements of a major capital improvement.

          Regarding the tenants' allegation that the new mailboxes were not 
          relocated, the Commissioner notes that the tenants failed to raise 
          this objection while the owner's application was pending before the 
          Rent Administrator. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds pursuant to 
          Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code that this issue may 
          not now be considered herein.

          Turning to the tenants' contentions that the work done was due to 
          a court order and that only some of the violations have been 
          repaired, it is the recognized position of the Division that the 
          fact work was performed to comply with a court order does not 
          constitute a bar to an MCI rent increase, if the owner otherwise so 
          qualifies. A review of Division's records does not support the 
          tenants contention with respect to the removal of such court order 
          violations nor have the tenants submitted any evidence with respect 
          thereto. Moreover, there are no rent reduction orders based on the 
          owner's failure to maintain services of a building-wide nature 
          outstanding against the subject premises.

          This determination is without prejudice to the right of the tenants 
          filing an application with the Division for a rent reduction based 
          upon a decrease in services or filing appropriate complaints with 
          the Division alleging that the owner is not maintaining all 
          required services, if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and 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