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.: BK430086RT
APPEAL OF
VARIOUS TENANTS OF 143-149 WEST
96TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY.
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DOCKET NO: EA430116OM
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above named tenants timely filed a petition for administrative
review (PAR) against an order issued on September 25, 1987 by the
Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing
Accommodations known as 143-149 West 96th Street, New York, New
York, various apartments, wherein the Administrator determined that
the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on a major capital
improvement (MCI).
The owner commenced this proceeding on May 22, 1986 by filing an
application for an MCI rent increase predicated on the installation
of a new burner and boiler.
The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, granted the
owner's application and authorized rent increases for the
controlled and stabilized apartments based upon total approved
costs of $50,000.00
In this petition for administrative review, the tenant request
reversal of the Administrator's order and contend, in substance,
that the replacement of the original boiler was long overdue since
such boiler was 56 years old; that the old boiler had long been
depreciated and its replacement should not be considered a capital
improvement but a necessary replacement in order to fulfill the
legal requirements for a warrant of habitability which each
building and apartment must have; that heat is not furnished on a
continuous basis when the outside temperature requires it; that the
"B" line does not get continuous not water; and that since the
additional charge for the boiler is subsumed into the base rent,
every five years the owner will receive an additional $50.000 for
the boiler installed in 1985.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BK430086RT
In response to the tenants' petition, the owner filed an answer
stating, in substance, that the boiler is in perfect condition;
that the problem on the "B" line of infrequent hot water was not a
boiler problem but a plumbing problem which has since been
corrected; and that the boiler is periodically reinspected by the
contractor. Submitted with the owner's response, is a copy of a
letter from Stuyvensant Fuel Service Corp. stating that the heating
system is in proper operating condition.
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 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent
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
installations involved wherein, to replace old items the useful
lives of which have expired, meet the definitional requirement of
a major capital improvement.
With respect to the tenant's contention regarding the adequacy of
the boiler/burner, the Commissioner notes that Division records
disclose that 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 nor have any heat/hot
water complaints been sustained by the Division either prior to or
subsequent to the issuance of the order appealed herein.
This determination is without prejudice to the rights of the
tenants filing an application with the Division for a rent
reduction based upon a decrease in service, if the facts so
warrant.
Turning to the tenants' contention that the MCI rent increase
should not form a permanent part of the rent structure, the
Commissioner notes that the New York State Court of Appeals in the
case of Matter of Ansonia Residents Association v DHCR ruled that
rent regulatory Law mandate that the increase be permanent.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and the Rent and Evictions Regulations for New York City, it is
2
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BK430086RT
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
|
