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
|
