DA 210120 RT
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: DA 210120 RT  
            ETTA KLEINER,                        DRO DOCKET NO.: BD 210643-OM 
                                                 Premises: 1818 OCEAN AVENUE
                                                  APT. 4W, BROOKLYN, N.Y.

          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 issued 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, rewiring, windows, roof,  elevator
          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

          In its petition for administrative  review,  the  tenant  requests
          reversal of the  Rent  Administrator's  order  and  asserts,  that
          capital improvement such as, new windows were already computed  in
          the initial increases for  the  apartment,  and  that  as  retired
          senior citizens the rent increase is a burden.

          The owner interposed an answer to the  tenant's  petition  contend
          ing, that the tenant's claim of rent increases  for  the  installa
          tion of an MCI being included in the vacancy lease is untrue, that 
          the owner was authorized to increase the rent by  the  order  here
          under review issued December 20, 1988, that owner did  not  adjust
          the rent based on this MCI until February 1, 1989 and has complied 
          fully with this order.  Additionally, the  petitioner  claim  that
          the rent increase is a burden since they are  senior  citizens  is

          DA 210120 RT

          irrelevant to the order and  the  petitioner  is  not  complaining
          about the improvements, but acknowledge that the improvements were 
          installed and are working properly.

          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.   

          With regards to the tenant's assertion that the rent increase is a 
          burden since they are retired senior  citizens  is  without  legal
          merit to reverse the Administrator's order.  The tenant is advised 
          to contact the New York City Department of Housing, Preservation & 
          Development and  apply  for  the  senior  citizens  rent  increase

          As to the tenant's assertion that the  capital  improvements  were
          computed in the initial increases for  the  apartment,  the  owner
          would be liable for damages pursuant to a determination  found  in
          favor of the tenant based upon a rent overcharge  complaint  filed
          with this Division.  However such collection does  not  constitute
          an error in the Administrator's order.

          The petitioner has failed to point to any error in fact or law  in
          the  Administrator's  order.   The  record  in  the  instant  case
          indicates  that  the  owner  correctly  complied  with  applicable
          procedures for  a  major  capital  improvement  and  the  Rent  Ad
          ministrator properly computed the appropriate rent increases.  The 
          tenant has not established that the increase should be revoked.

          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,

                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          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