DOCKET NOS. CL 210156-RT, CL 210330-RT
                                  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
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NOS.: CL 210156-RT
                                                              CL          210330-RT
            JEANNIE TROYANSKY,                  
            BERNARD & MARGARET MULLIN,           DRO DOCKET NO.: BB 230016 OM 
                                                  
                                                 Premises: 15 & 35 Oliver Street
                                                  Apts. 3B, 5H, Brooklyn, N.Y.
                                PETITIONERS
          ------------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named tenants filed Petitions for Administrative  Review
          of an order issued concerning the housing accommodations  relating
          to the above described docket numbers.
                  
          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence  in  the  record
          and has carefully considered that portion of the  record  relevant
          to the issues raised by the petitions.

          The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing an  application
          for a rent increase based on various major  capital  improvements,
          to wit-adequate wiring, plumbing.
           
          Each tenant was served with a copy of the owner's application  and
          was afforded an opportunity to review it  and  comment  thereupon.
                                                                            
          Both petitioner-tenants interposed answers to the owner's  applica
          tion.  One tenant asserts, that plumbing was performed to make the 
          apartments saleable for co-oping,  that  all  new  bathrooms  were
          installed in vacant apartments where as,  just  new  toilets  were
          installed in all apartments, and were unnecessary,  and  that  the
          installation of wiring was unnecessary.  The other tenant  asserts
          that the rent increase is not warranted, and that she is a  senior
          citizen with a limited income.

           

                           Thereafter, the  Rent  Administrator  issued  the
          order here under review finding that the installation qualified as 
          a major capital  improvement,  determining  that  the  application
          complied with the relevant laws and  regulations  based  upon  the
          supporting documentation submitted  by  the  owner,  and  allowing
          appropriate rent increases.

          In its petition for administrative review, the tenant  requests  a
          review of the Rent Administrator's  order  and  alleges  that  the
          order was warranted and should be affirmed.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied.







          DOCKET NOS. CL 210156-RT, CL 210330-RT


          Rent increases for major capital improvements  are  authorized  by
          Section 2202.4 of the  Rent  and  Eviction  Regulations  for  rent
          controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization 
          law for  rent  stabilized  apartments.   Under  rent  control,  an
          increase is warranted where there has been since July  1,  1970  a
          major capital improvement required  for  the  operation,  preserva
          tion, or maintenance of the structure.  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.   

          The Commissioner will not entertain the  tenant's  unsubstantiated
          defense raised for the first time on appeal, even  though  it  was
          afforded an  opportunity  to  file  an  objection  before  the  Ad
          ministrator.  The record in the instant case  indicates  that  the
          owner correctly complied with application procedures for  a  major
          capital improvement and the Rent Administrator  properly  computed
          the appropriate rent increases.  The tenant  has  not  established
          that the increase should be revoked.

          This order is issued without prejudice to  the  tenants  right  to
          file an application for decrease in services, should the facts  so
          warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law Code, and 
          the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

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

          ISSUED:




                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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