DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: CB410191RT
STEVEN E. SHAPIRO,
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.: L000423OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 19, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant timely re-
filed a petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued
on November 5, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 226 East 70th Street, New York, NY,
apartment 2G, wherein the Administrator granted the owner's
application for a rent increase which was based on the installation
of a major capital improvement (MCI), a boiler/burner.
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.
The owner commenced the instant proceeding by initially filing an
application for a rent increase predicated on the installation of
a boiler/burner at a total cost of $42,500.00.
In Docket No. L000423OM, issued November 5, 1987, the Rent
Administrator issued the order here under review, approving the
owner's MCI application by authorizing a rent increase of $3.97 per
room, per month for all rent controlled and rent stabilized
apartments in the subject building.
In this petition, the tenant contends, in substance, that the Rent
Administrator's order should be reversed because his lease does not
contain a provision authorizing the collection of a rent increase
pursuant to a DHCR order.
The owner did not file a response to the petition, although
afforded the opportunity to do so.
After a careful consideration of the entire record, the
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CB410191RT
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 and are warranted
where the improvements are building-wide, depreciable under the
Internal Revenue Code, other than for ordinary repair, 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 indicates that the Administrator's
order was predicated upon a review of full supporting documentation
including contracts, contractor's certification and cancelled
According to the terms and conditions of the order, the increase
granted by the order is collectible during the term of the current
lease only if the lease contains a provision authorizing the
collection of an increase pursuant to a DHCR order, as provided by
Section 2522.5(d)(2) of the Rent Stabilization Code and Division
precedent. In the absence of same and in accordance with Section
2522.4(a)(5) of the Code, said increase is not collectible until
the expiration of the lease term then in effect at the time of the
issuance of the MCI order, provided the renewal lease contains a
general authorization provision for adjustment of the rent reserved
by the DHCR order. If the petitioner's lease does not contain such
a clause, he need not pay the increase and if the owner attempted
to collect the increase, the tenant's remedy is to file an
Since the tenant did not challenge the propriety of the
Administrator's order, and only attacked the owner's right to
collect the rent increase, the tenant's petition is denied.
However, this order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the
tenant's right to file a rent overcharge complaint, if the facts so
Based on the entire evidence of record, the Commissioner finds that
the Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied; and
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CB410191RT
that the order of the Rent Administrator be and the same hereby is,
LULA M. ANDERSON