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.: BJ110223RT
APPEAL OF
CLARA FERNANDEZ RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: QCS00967OM
PETITIONER
-------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 9, 1987, the above named petitioner-tenant timely filed
a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued
on September 30, 1987, by a Rent Administrator concerning the
housing accommodations known as 36-11 Bowne Street, Apt. 4G,
Flushing, New York, 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 owner commenced this proceeding on November 1, 1985, by filing
an application for a rent increase based on the installation of the
following MCI at a total cost of $38,000.00: new boiler/burner.
The tenant did not submit an objection to the owner's MCI
application although afforded the opportunity to do so.
On September 30, 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 appropriate rent increases for rent
stabilized tenants. Also, the related Docket No. QCS00968OM was
issued simultaneously for apartment windows and a new compactor
which totalled $55,650.00.
The two orders were combined by the Rent Administrator with respect
to the calculation of said increases although the applications were
filed separately so that the increases would be appropriately
determined in accordance with Section 2522.4 of the Rent
Stabilization Code (6% limitation).
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BJ-110223-RT
In this petition, the tenant contends, in substance, that the
combined retroactive and prospective rent increases granted under
Docket Nos. QCS00967OM and QCS00968OM exceed the annual allowable
increase of 6%; that paying said increases would cause her undue
hardship; and that she requests that payment of all retroactive
increases be stayed until the issuance of this order and opinion.
In response to the tenant's petition, the owner contends, among
other things, that the petition should be denied for the following
reasons:
1) the calculated prospective/permanent increase as applied
to the base rent is $22.44 per month which is exactly 6%
of the rent effective as of March 1986, not a greater
percentage;
2) the retroactive/temporary increase was rightfully granted
by the DHCR and established to last for one year only;
and
3) the petitioner was the first tenant to pay the
retroactive rent increase even though she claimed that it
was a hardship.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
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 the record in the instant case indicates that the
Rent Administrator implemented the proper calculations with respect
to the rent increases granted under Docket Nos. QCS00967OM and
QCS00968OM. Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code states,
in pertinent part, that "the collection of any increase...shall not
exceed six percent in any year from the effective date of the order
granting the increase over the rent set forth in the schedule of
gross rents (submitted in the application), with collectibility of
any dollar excess above said sum to be spread forward in similar
increments and added to the legal regulated rent as established or
set in future years," meaning that each portion of the increase,
prospective (permanent) and retroactive (temporary), may not exceed
6%. Thus, the maximum allowable increase for rent stabilized
tenants is actually 12% above the rent set forth in the schedule of
gross rents.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BJ-110223-RT
The petitioner should be aware of the fact that any amounts above
the 6% maximum allowable increase for each portion of said increase
have been allocated for payment in the year following the initial
effective date of said increases as established under Docket No.
QCS00968OM which refers the petitioner back to the order herein.
The Commissioner notes that tenants possessing a valid Senior
Citizen Rent Increase Exemption may be eligible for some relief
from the hardship of rent increase payments.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
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.
ISSUED:
____________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
