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
     APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS. DD 120025-RT
                                         :              DD 110033-RT
       VARIOUS TENANTS OF                               DD 110170-RT
       53-01 32ND AVENUE,                               DD 110206-RT
       WOODSIDE, NY        PETITIONERS   :              DD 120207-RT
     ------------------------------------X              DD 110345-RT   
                                                        DD 110348-RT
                                                        DE 130530-RT
                                                        DE 110538-RT

                 ORDER AND OPINION DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS

     Various tenants timely filed or refiled Administrative Appeals against  an
     order issued on March 7, 1989 by a Rent Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall
     Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known  as
     53-01 32nd Avenue, Woodside, New York,  Various  Apartments,  wherein  the
     Rent Administrator determined that  the  owner  was  entitled  to  a  rent
     increase based on a major capital  improvement  (MCI).   The  Commissioner
     deems it appropriate  to  consolidate  these  administrative  appeals  for
     determination under this order and opinion as they involve  common  issues
     of law and fact.

     The Administrative Appeals are being determined pursuant to the provisions 
     of 9 NYCRR 2202.4 and 9 NYCRR 2522.4.

     The issue herein is whether the  Rent  Administrator's  determination  was
     warranted.

     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 petitions for review.

     The owner commenced this proceeding on November  13,  1987  by  filing  an
     application for a rent increase based on a major capital  improvement,  to
     wit - replacement windows at a total cost of $120,645.00.

     On January 13, 1988, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal  (DHCR)
     served each tenant with a copy of the application and afforded the tenants 
     the opportunity to review it and comment thereupon.

     Although several tenants in the subject building filed responses, only one 
     of the nine petitioning tenants herein filed any objections to the owner's 
     application.  Said tenant (Apartment 5H)  claimed,  in  substance  that  a
     "fixtured wall frame" in his apartment was damaged during the installation 
     of the new windows; that the new windows are just a ploy to  increase  the
     rent; that there is inadequate heat; and that  the  installation  was  not
     done in a workmanlike manner.








          DOCKET NUMBER: DD 120025-RT etal
     On March 7, 1989, 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 documentation submitted  by
     the owner, and allowing appropriate rent increases for rent controlled and 
     rent stabilized apartments.

     It was noted in the order that the tenant of 5H complained of  damage  due
     to the installation; that on January  20,  1989,  the  owner  advised  the
     Division that the tenant of Apartment 5H declined repairs;  and  that  the
     owner's claim was not challenged by the tenant.

     In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request reversal 
     of the Rent Administrator's order and allege  that  the  windows  are  the
     owner's responsibility and that the tenants should not  have  to  pay  for
     them.  They assert that  the  old  windows  needed  replacement,  and  new
     windows constitute maintenance  and  not  an  improvement.   They  further
     assert  that  the  replacement  windows  are  of  poor  quality  and  were
     inadequately installed; that the cost of  the  improvement  seems  grossly
     overstated; that the rent increase exceeds the 6%  annual  cap;  that  the
     hallway windows were replaced separately; and that the owner is  receiving
     a tax abatement.

     The tenant of Apartment 1H asserts that the windows were  installed  prior
     to her taking occupancy in June, 1988 and that while there was a clause in 
     her lease regarding the increase, no one explained to her that there would 
     also be a retroactive payment.  The tenant of Apartment  5H  asserts  that
     the statement pertaining to him  in  the  Rent  Administrator's  order  is
     libelous.

     In answer to the tenants'  petitions  the  owner  alleges  that  they  are
     without merit.

     After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that  these
     petitions 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, preservation, 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 notes that none of the objections now  being  raised  for
     the first time on administrative appeal  by  the  petitioners  other  than
     those raised by the tenant of Apartment 5H were raised while  the  owner's
     application was pending before the Rent Administrator even though  all  of
     the tenants were afforded the opportunity  to  do  so.   Accordingly,  the
     Commissioner finds pursuant to Section 2529.6 of  the  Rent  Stabilization
     Code and pursuant to prior administrative decisions under the Rent and 







          DOCKET NUMBER: DD 120025-RT etal
     Eviction Regulations that these objections may not be  considered  herein.
     The useful life of the old windows had been exceeded and their replacement 
     constitutes a major capital improvement.

     The Commissioner deems it appropriate to note that concerning  the  affect
     of the owner's alleged application for or receipt  of  J-51  tax  benefits
     based on the subject  improvement,  this  benefit  does  not  preclude  an
     owner's  entitlement  to  a  major  capital  improvement   rent   increase
     adjustment therefor.  Though rent stabilized tenants may  presently  share
     in the benefits of a tax abatement received by an owner pursuant  to  J-51
     of the Administrative Code, this provision does  not  apply  to  the  rent
     stabilized tenants in the instant matter  as  the  law  is  applicable  to
     improvement work commenced after June 28, 1988, and  is  not  retroactive.
     However, tenants of rent controlled apartments may be entitled to share in 
     such tax abatement benefits and should make  application  to  DHCR  "Owner
     Individual Unit" for such rent adjustment as may be warranted.

     The  Commissioner  deems  it  appropriate  to  further  note  that   those
     petitioners who claim that the Administrator's  decision  exceeds  the  6%
     formula permitted by law have failed to submit  any  evidence  as  to  the
     actual rent increase effected by the owner.  As such, there is no basis on 
     which to determine whether the owner's rent  increases  as  to  individual
     apartments  exceeds  the  6%  limitation  so  provided   in   the   order.
     Consequently, this  order  is  issued  without  prejudice  for  filing  of
     individual rent overcharge complaints if the facts so warrant.

     The record in the instant case indicates that the owner correctly complied 
     with the application procedures for a major capital  improvement  and  the
     Rent Administrator properly computed the appropriate rent increases.   The
     tenants have not established that the increase should be revoked.

     As to the allegations made by the tenant of  Apartment  5H  regarding  the
     quality of the installation, the Commissioner notes  that  this  complaint
     was raised in the proceeding below  but  it  does  not  appear  that  such
     complaint  was   adequately   addressed   prior   to   issuance   of   the
     Administrator's order.  It is therefore the opinion  of  the  Commissioner
     that the tenant of Apartment 5H should be afforded 30 days from  the  date
     of issuance of this order and opinion to  notify  the  owner  of  specific
     problems the tenant may still be experiencing with the  windows  installed
     in his  apartment.   The  owner  is  hereby  directed  to  effectuate  any
     necessary repairs or adjustments of the windows within 60 days of  receipt
     of such specific notice from the tenant.  If such work is not performed to 
     the tenant's satisfaction, the tenant may then file  a  service  reduction
     complaint with the Division asserting the problems the tenant may still be 
     experiencing with his windows.   If  it  is  found  that  a  reduction  in
     services has occurred, then not only would the tenant be entitled  to  the
     standard rent reduction therefor, the MCI rent increase may  be  suspended
     retroactively to its effective date as well.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, and the 
     Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is











          DOCKET NUMBER: DD 120025-RT etal
     ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied and that 
     the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

     ISSUED:










                                                                   
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Acting 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