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
           






    

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