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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE      DOCKET Nos.:  DB410268RT,
          APPEALS OF                                             DB430264RT
                    R. SUSAN KAUFMAN AND 
                    ELLERY KURTZ                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  AI430121OM

                                   PETITIONERS
          -------------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above named petitioner-tenants timely filed petitions for 
          administrative review (PARs) against an order issued on January 6, 
          1989, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 240 East Sixth Street, New York, New York, 
          apartments 2 and 4, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that 
          the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on the installation 
          of a major capital improvement (MCI).

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same order and 
          involve common issues of law and fact.

          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 this administrative appeal.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on September 11, 1986, by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          installation of new prime windows at a total cost of $10,765.00.

          One tenant objected to the owner's MCI application, alleging, in 
          substance, that the new windows were defective and screens were not 
          provided.

          A physical inspection of the subject premises occurred on April 21, 
          1988, wherein the inspector noted that the windows in apartment # 
          4 were in need of repair.

          The owner was notified of the inspector's findings and subsequently 
          responded to the tenant's objections by effectuating the necessary 
          repairs evidenced by the owner's submission of a signed statement 
          from said tenant indicating that the complaint had been resolved as 
          of June 22, 1988.












          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. DB-410268-RT; DB-430264-RT

          On January 6, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installation qualified as an MCI, 
          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 for rent 
          stabilized tenants.

          In these petitions, the tenants contend, in substance, that the 
          charges imposed upon them exceed the allowable 6% increase 
          prospectively and retroactively.

          In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that no billing in accordance with the order herein had 
          occurred as of the response date April 21, 1989, as the owner had 
          not yet received the Administrator's order; and that upon receipt 
          of said order, the tenants would be billed accordingly.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be 
          denied.
           
          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.  It is the long-standing policy of 
          the Division that the building-wide installation of new windows to 
          replace windows which were at least twenty-five years old qualifies 
          for treatment as a major capital improvement.

          The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the 
          Administrator correctly computed the amount of the rent increase at 
          $7.48 per room per month effective as of December 1, 1986.  The 
          Commissioner deems it appropriate to mention that Section 2522.4 of 
          the Rent Stabilization Code provides that the collection of any 
          increase shall not exceed six percent in any year from the 
          collectibility date of the order granting the increase over the 
          rent set forth in the schedule of gross rents submitted with the 
          application (September 1986 in the instant proceeding), with 
          collectibility of any dollar excess above said sum to be spread 
          forward in similar increments and added to the legal regulated rent 
          as established or set in future years.  Each portion of the 
          increase, prospective (permanent) and retroactive (temporary), may 
          not exceed 6%.  Thus, the maximum allowable increase for rent 
          stabilized tenants is actually 12% above the rent set forth in the 
          schedule of gross rents.



                                          2






          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. DB-410268-RT; DB-430264-RT

          The Commissioner notes that this order and opinion is issued 
          without prejudice to the right of the tenants to file overcharge 
          complaints with the DHCR if the owner has collected any increase in 
          excess of said limitations.

          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 Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                       ____________________
                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                        Deputy Commissioner
































                                          3






    

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