STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
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
------------------------------------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
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner