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  
    

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