DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NO.:  CB420236RT
          APPEAL OF
                      MARIA CRISTIN,

                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO.:  AK430159OM 
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On February 9, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant re-filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          November 22, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodation known as 300 West 49th Street, New York, NY, 
          Apartment 302, wherein the Administrator granted the landlord's 
          application for a rent increase which was based on the installation 
          of various major capital improvements (MCIs).

          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 landlord commenced the instant proceeding by initially filing 
          an application for a rent increase predicated on the installation 
          of a boiler/burner, windows, compactor, roof and an elevator 
          upgrade at a total cost of $392,578.00.

          In Docket No. AK430159OM, issued November 22, 1987, the Rent 
          Administrator issued the order here under review, approving the 
          landlord's MCI application by authorizing a rent increase of $13.98 
          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 all of 
          the installations are defective in that they do not comply with the 
          requirements of Rent Control Advisory Sheet 1-33.1(e), section 117 
          of the Rent Regulations, the decision of the Court in State of New 
          York v. Winter, wherein it was held that no increase can be imposed 
          on the tenant if such expenditure was for nothing more than 
          replacement of a non-functioning service traditionally included in 
          the apartment rent, and that no bills or cancelled checks were 
          submitted with the application.  

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CB420236RT













          The tenant also contends that the installation of the boiler/burner 
          is defective because the installation was piecemeal based on the 
          fact that the application was submitted over a year after the work 
          was commenced, it was not an upgrade, modernization, modification 
          and/or conversion of an already existing boiler/burner, and the 
          cost of the installation is excessive; the roof installation was 
          performed piecemeal based on the fact that the application was 
          submitted over a year after the work was commenced; the compactor 
          installation was not an upgrade, modernization, modification and/or 
          conversion of an existing installation, and the requisite 
          governmental approvals were not submitted; the upgrading of the 
          elevator is defective in that the requisite governmental approvals 
          were not submitted in accordance with Rent Control Advisory Sheet 
          No. 5, the installation was piecemeal based on the fact that the 
          application was submitted over a year after the work was commenced, 
          and no safety mirrors were installed as required by the Multiple 
          Dwelling Law; the installation of the windows is defective in that 
          it does not comply with Rent Control Advisory Sheet No. 4, the 
          window installers were non-union workers and not licensed in the 
          state of New York, the increase cannot be more than $1.15 per 
          window according to Rent Control Advisory Sheet No. 4, and the 
          installation was piecemeal based on the fact that the application 
          was submitted over a year after the work was commenced.

          The tenant further contends that the landlord did not submit any 
          building plans and was in violation of the Multiple Dwelling Law, 
          Section 302-A, by allowing rent impairing violations to exist for 
          more than six months.  The tenant submitted two MBR denial orders 
          that were based on the landlord's failure to remove the required 
          number of violations.

          In response to the petition, the landlord contends, in substance, 
          that the boiler/burner was a complete replacement and not 
          "piecemeal"; the roof installed was new; the compactor installed 
          was a replacement of the existing compactor; the elevator upgrade 
          work performed included controller/selectors and all components 
          required; all windows were replaced in all apartments, regulations 
          in effect at the time of filing did not require tenant consent or 
          prior written agency approval, there exists no requirement that a 
          landlord is permitted to collect only $1.15 per window, and the law 
          does not require Building Department approval for window 
          installation.  In addition the landlord contends that copies of all 
          contracts, invoices, cancelled checks as well as documentation of 
          all requisite governmental approvals were submitted with the 
          landlord's application.

          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 
          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CB420236RT

          Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations of New York 
          City.  Under rent control, an increase is warranted where there has 






          been, since July 1, 1970, a major capital improvement required for 
          the operation, preservation or maintenance of the structure.

          The record in the instant case indicates that the Administrator's 
          order was predicated upon a review of full supporting documentation 
          including contracts, contractor certifications, cancelled checks 
          and requisite governmental approvals.

          The tenant has misunderstood Rent Control Advisory Sheet 1-33.1(e), 
          which has to do with concurrent improvements which do not otherwise 
          qualify as major capital improvements.  Rent Control Advisory Sheet 
          1-33.1(e) and all of its requirements are not applicable to the 
          present situation because, here, each installation, in and of 
          itself, qualifies as a major capital improvement.

          Contrary to the tenant's assertions, none of the installations were 
          piecemeal.  For rent control apartments, there is no time 
          limitation for filing an MCI application.

          It is not necessary for the boiler/burner or compactor 
          installations to be upgrades, modifications, modernizations or 
          conversions of existing installations because these installations 
          replaced equipment for which the useful life had expired.

          The tenant's contention that the holding of State of New York v. 
          Winter is applicable here is misguided.  The decision applies only 
          to individual apartment services or equipment and not to building- 
          wide MCIs.

          The Commissioner notes that, contrary to the tenant's assertions, 
          copies of all contracts, invoices, cancelled checks and requisite 
          governmental approvals were submitted for all installations with 
          the landlord's rent increase application.

          As to the tenant's complaint regarding the lack of safety mirrors 
          in the elevators, it is not the obligation or responsibility of the 
          DHCR to enforce these regulations.  Any complaints of the tenant 
          regarding this matter should be addressed to the elevator division 
          of the Department of Buildings of the City of New York.

          Regarding the window installation, the fact that non-union workers 
          were employed, even if true, is not a relevant consideration in 
          determining what constitutes a major capital improvement for which 
          a rent increase may be granted.  The correct computation of rent 
          increases for MCIs is contained in Operational Bulletin 84-4, which 
          states that the rent adjustment granted by the District Rent 
          Administrator applicable to rent controlled apartments shall be 
          computed based upon a 5 year (60 month) period of amortization of 
          ADMIN REVIEW DOCKET NO. CB420236RT

          the verified cost of the major capital improvement.  The Rent 
          Administrator properly computed the increase in accordance with 
          this Operational Bulletin which was in effect when the order was 
          issued and which superceded prior directives regarding rent 












          adjustments for windows.  The Commissioner also notes that the 
          tenant made no complaint as to the operation or workmanship of the 
          windows.

          It is not necessary for the owner to file any building plans in 
          relation to the installations in order to receive a rent increase.

          Any allegation regarding a failure to correct a rent impairing 
          violation must be raised by the tenant during an MBR proceeding, 
          not an MCI application.  In addition, the MBR denial orders 
          submitted by the tenant predate the MCI work by several years and 
          are not relevant to this proceeding.

          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 
          and Eviction Regulations of New York City, it is

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



          ISSUED:




                                                                          
                                                  LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                                  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