ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BJ930237RO, ETC.
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.: BJ930237RO,
BJ930238RO, BJ930239RO,
BJ930240RO, BJ930241RO,
BJ930242RO, BJ930243RO
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: WAL830016OM
WILLIAM S. BURTON
PETITIONER PREMISES: 10, 12, 14, 18,
------------------------------------X 26, 28, 30,
Hunt Place,
White Plains,
N. Y.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING SEVEN PETITIONS
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
These petitions have been consolidated as they involve common
issues of law and fact.
On October 8, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner, timely
filed seven petitions for administrative review against an order
issued on September 3, 1987, by the District Rent Administrator, 99
Church Street, White Plains, N.Y., concerning the above-named
housing accommodations, wherein the Administrator had denied the
owner's application for a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent
increase.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator should
have granted the owner's application.
The applicable section of the Tenant Protection Regulations
(TPR) is Section 2502.4.
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 the administrative appeal.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BJ930237RO, ETC.
In Order Number WAL830016OM, the Rent Administrator determined
that the installations that were the subject of the owner's
application were not done on a building-wide basis and therefore
did not qualify for an MCI increase.
In these petitions, the owner contends that the Rent
Administrator's Order is incorrect and should be modified because
the Administrator "failed to consider that each apartment is a
separate self-contained duplex type apartment...[sharing no] single
facility except the roof...[and therefore the Administrator should
have] consider[ed] each capital improvement to each apartment on
its own merits."
The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should
be denied.
In general, no MCI increase can be granted unless the
underlying improvement or installation is "building-wide." In a
garden complex or a so-called "horizontal multiple dwelling" this
means that the improvement must be complex-wide. In his petition
the owner states that of the seven units named above, four received
a new porch railing and various amounts of new porch decking, two
received porch railings only, and one received a new entrance and
two doors.
Clearly, the installations were not complex-wide. (DHCR
records indicate that there are other apartments in the complex.)
This order is without prejudice to the owner's right to
receive rent increases for improvements to individual apartments
with the consent of the tenants.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Emergency Tenant Protection
Act and Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
denied and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|