DA 210120 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.: DA 210120 RT
ETTA KLEINER, DRO DOCKET NO.: BD 210643-OM
Premises: 1818 OCEAN AVENUE
APT. 4W, BROOKLYN, N.Y.
PETITIONER
-----------------------------------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 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
modernization.
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.
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
exemption.
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,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
