CL 610154 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 NO.: CL 610154-RT  
                                                
            WALTER NOHAR,                        DRO DOCKET NO.: BA 630039-OM 
                                                  
                                                 Premises: 1255 Stratford Ave.
                                PETITIONER        Apt. E7, Bronx, NY
          ------------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named tenant timely filed a Petition for  Administrative
          Review of an order issued concerning  the  housing  accommodations
          relating to the above described docket number.        

          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 petition.

          The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing an  application
          for a rent increase based on various major  capital  improvements,
          to wit-boiler/burner, intercom system, lobby and vestibule  doors,
          elevator upgrading.
           
          Each tenant was served with a copy of the owner's application  and
          was afforded an opportunity to review it  and  comment  thereupon.
                                                                            
          The petitioner-tenant did not file an  objection  to  the  owner's
          application although afforded the opportunity to do so.

          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  documenta
          tion submitted by the owner,  and  allowing  appropriate  rent  in
          creases.  The Rent Administrator disallowed an increase based upon 
          elevator upgrading.

          In his petition for administrative  review,  the  tenant  requests
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges, that there 
          is no elevator service and is unsafe to use  after  repairs,  have
          been made, that the intercom is of no use when the doors are  left
          open and both are regularly out of service.

          The owner interposed an answer to the  tenant's  petition  contend
          ing, that the elevator service has been  upgraded  and  the  viola
          tions have been dismissed, that the doors and intercom improve 






          CL 610154 RT

          security for the  tenants  and  improve  building  safety  at  the
          premises.

          The tenant interposed a response to the  owner's  answer  alleging
          that the elevator is constantly being repaired, that the  elevator
          service is inadequate, that replacement of the  boiler/burner  was
          required since the tenant's have been without heat and hot  water.
          The petitioner agrees that the doors and  intercom  add  security,
          however, the doors and intercom do not  operate  properly  or  are
          frequently out of service.

          Subsequently, the owner interposed  a  rebuttal  to  the  tenant's
          response contending, that the elevator has been upgraded  and  can
          be substantiated with receipts or by inspection, that  the  tenant
          acknowledged that a new boiler/burner was needed and installed.

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

          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 
          Code 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 assertions raised 
          for the first time on appeal,  even  though  it  was  afforded  an
          opportunity to file an objection before  the  Administrator.   The
          record in the instant case  indicates  that  the  owner  correctly
          complied with application procedures for a major  capital  improve
          ment 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 a rent reduction based on  a  decrease  in
          services, should the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          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