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.: CB 110134-RT
                                          :               CB 110135-RT
      PAUL PORIS, DAVID WONG                              CB 110136-RT
      CHUNG-HSIEN SU, ON HWA HU,                          CB 110139-RT
                            PETITIONERS   : 
      ------------------------------------X  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             DOCKET NO.: AG 110156-OM

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

      The above named petitioners-tenants timely filed petitions for 
      Administrative Review against an order issued on January 7, 1988 by the 
      Rent Administrator, Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing 
      accommodations known as 41-35 52nd Street, Queens, New York, Various 
      Apartments.  The Administrator's order granted a major capital improvement 
      (MCI) rent increase adjustment based on the installation of a new roof at 
      a total approved cost of $1,900.00.

      The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these Administrative 
      Appeals for determination under this order and opinion as they involve 
      common issues of law and fact.

      In separately filed petitions for Administrative Review the tenants request 
      reversal of the Administrator's order and contend, in substance, that no 
      new roof was installed as the landlord just repaired the roof.  The tenant 
      of apartment 2R further asserts that improvements in the building has not 
      been done even though it was stipulated and agreed to by the landlord.

      In support of their contentions, the tenants submitted a report from a Home 
      Inspection Consultant dated January 26,1 988, which stated that the roof 
      was re-roofed with one layer of felt and that there is evidence of air 
      bubbles over about forty percent of the roof area.

      After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
      Commissioner is of the opinion that these Administrative Appeals 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.

      With respect to the tenants' contentions regarding the roof, the 
      Commissioner notes that the Home Inspection Consultant's report confirms 










          DOCKET NUMBER: CB 110134-RT, etal.
      that a new roof was indeed installed.  Furthermore that the record 
      discloses that neither in the proceeding below or on appeal did the tenants 
      allege any current leaks or roof related problems.

      With respect to the assertion of the tenant in apartments 2R, the 
      Commissioner further notes that this tenant did not raise any objections 
      while the owner's application was pending before the Rent Administrator 
      even though afforded the opportunity to do so.  Accordingly, the 
      Commissioner finds pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization 
      Code that this objection may not now be considered herein.

      The record further discloses that the owner substantiated its application 
      by submitting to the Administration documentation in support of the 
      application, including a copy of the contract, invoice, contractor's 
      certification and cancelled checks for the work in question; and that the 
      Rent Administrator correctly computed the appropriate rent increase based 
      on the substantiated cost of the improvement.  The tenants have not 
      established that the increase should be revoked.

      This determination is without prejudice to the rights of the tenants filing 
      applications with the Division for a rent reduction based upon a decrease 
      in services, if the facts so warrant.

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

      ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are denied, and that 
      the Rent Administrator's order 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