DD 120032-RT, et al.


                                  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 120032-RT;  DD 130074-RT  
                                                  DD 110028-RT;  DD 110073-RT
                 VARIOUS TENANTS OF               DD 120027-RT;  DD 110034-RT
                 53-01 32ND AVENUE,               DD 110026-RT;  DD 130114-RT
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     BK 130072-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW  


          The  Commissioner  has  consolidated  these  petitions  as   they
          involve common questions of law and fact.

          Various tenants filed timely petitions for administrative  review
          of an order issued on March 7,  1989,  by  a  Rent  Administrator
          concerning the building known as 53-01 32nd Avenue, Woodside,   
          New York, wherein the  Rent  Administrator  determined  that  the
          owner was entitled to a rent increase based on  a  major  capital
          improvement (MCI).

          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.


          Five of the petitioning tenants did not file  any  objections  to
          the owner's application although afforded the opportunity  to  do
          so.  The tenant of apartment 6-R claimed that  the  windows  were
          installed prior to her taking occupancy.  The tenant of Apartment 
          3-G claimed that her rent had been increased previously for storm 
          windows, and the tenant of Apartment 6-G  questioned  the  nature
          and duration of the increase.

          On March 7, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued  the  order  here







          DD 120032-RT, et al.
          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 controll d  and  rent  stabilized  apart-
          ments.  
                         
          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.  The tenant of Apartment 6-R asserts that the 
          windows were installed prior to her taking occupancy  in  January
          1987 and that her apartment contains 2 1/2 and not 3 rooms.

          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 t e  Rent  Stabiliza-
          tion 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.

          The Commissioner notes that no application for  an  MCI  increase
          was pending at the time that the tenant  of  Apartment  6-R  took
          occupancy in January 1987.  The Commissioner further notes that a 



          copy of the application  which  was  served  on  this  tenant  on
          January 13, 1988 stated that her apartment contained three  rooms
          and that she did not object to the room count.

          The Commissioner notes that none  of  the  objections  now  being
          raised for the first time on administrative appeal by  the  peti-
          tioners 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 
          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 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







          DD 120032-RT, et al.
          appropriate rent increases.  The  tenants  have  not  established
          that the increase should be revoked.


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

          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:


                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                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