DHCR Decisions                              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