DOCKET NUMBER: CD 110165-RT

                                 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
     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.CD 110165-RT
                                         :  
       THOMAS FAVATA                        RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
      & VARIOUS TENANTS                     DOCKET NO. AB 130149-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On April 18, 1988 the above named petitioner-tenants filed a Petition  for
     Administrative Review against an order issued on March  21,  1988  by  the
     Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York  concerning
     housing accommodations known as 86-20  Park  Lane  South,  Woodhaven,  New
     York, various apartments, wherein  the  Rent  Administrator  authorized  a
     major capital improvement rent increase for  the  installation  of  a  new
     roof, adequate wiring and a new  burner  at  the  subject  premises.   The
     Administrator disallowed expenditures for several  other  items  (not  the
     subject of this proceeding) based upon a determination that the items  did
     not constitute major capital improvements.  Said order was issued after  a
     review of the supporting documentation submitted by the owner, the  tenant
     responses thereto and an inspection of the subject premises.

     The Commissioner notes that although the record  shows  that  only  a  new
     burner was  installed  at  the  subject  premises,  said  installation  is
     referred to below as the "boiler/burner" installation.

     The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record  and  has
     carefully considered that portion of the  record  relevant  to  the  issue
     raised by the administrative appeal.

     In the petition, the tenants contend that the roof was leaking in  various
     top floor apartments (6A,6B,6D,6G and 6H) and there was leaking in various 
     other  apartments;  that  the  inspector  was  not  qualified;  that   the
     electrical wiring was improperly performed and old  fuse  boxes  were  not
     removed; that the heating system was being operated manually and heat  was
     not provided on a regular basis; and that the  owner  is  not  maintaining
     services.

     After a careful consideration of the entire 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 record in the  instant  case,  which  includes  copies  of  proposals,
     invoices, contractors'  certifications,  cancelled  checks  for  the  work






          DOCKET NUMBER: CD 110165-RT
     performed and governmental approvals and sign-offs for the installation of 
     the heating system and the  adequate  wiring,  indicates  that  the  owner
     correctly complied with the applicable  procedures  for  a  major  capital
     improvement; and  that  the  Rent  Administrator  correctly  computed  the
     appropriate rent increases  based  on  the  proven  cost  of  the  various
     improvements.  The tenants have not established that the  increase  should
     be revoked.

     Regarding  the  tenants'  contention  that  the  roof  is   leaking,   the
     Commissioner notes that on February 19, 1988, this  Division  conducted  a
     physical inspection of the subject roof, which revealed that the old  roof
     was replaced and that the new roof appeared in good  shape.   Furthermore,
     as to the top floor apartments listed  in  the  petition  as  having  roof
     related leaking problems, the tenants of these apartments  did  not  raise
     the  issue  of  current  leaks  during  the  proceeding  before  the  Rent
     Administrator although they  were  afforded  the  opportunity  to  do  so.
     Accordingly, pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code the 
     tenants' allegations may not be considered now when offered for the  first
     time on Administrative appeal.

     Regarding the  tenants'  contention  that  the  adequate  wiring  was  not
     properly performed, the record indicates that in addition to upgrading the 
     capacity of the wiring  at  the  subject  premises,  the  owner  installed
     circuit breakers/panels, air conditioner outlets, heavy  duty  outlets  in
     each  kitchen  and  wire  risers  and  that  said  installation  met   the
     definitional requirements of an MCI.  The tenants unsupported  contentions
     regarding the adequacy of wiring installation are insufficient to  warrant
     revocation of the MCI increase.

     Regarding the tenants' contention that the heating  system  is  not  being
     operated properly, the record shows that on November 18, 1987  a  physical
     inspection of the subject premises was conducted by a staff member of  the
     DIvision who reported that adequate hot water was being provided and  that
     heat was not required at the time of the inspection.  In addition a review 
     of Division records reveals that no heating complaints have been filed  by
     any tenants since the new burner was  installed.   The  tenants  have  not
     established that the MCI increase should be revoked.  However, this  Order
     and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the tenants' right to file  the
     appropriate application for decrease in rent based on any current  service
     decreases, if the facts so warrant.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law 
     and Code, it is

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,  and  that
     the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is,  affirmed.

     ISSUED:


                                                                   
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Acting 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