Adm. Review Docket Nos.: DE 210369-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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NOS.: DE 210369-RT
DE 210477-RT; DE 210482-RT
DE 210511-RT; DF 210090-RT
DF 210129-RT; DF 210130-RT
VARIOUS TENANTS, DF 210131-RT; DF 210132-RT
DF 210134-RT; DG 210216-RT
DG 210328-RT; DK 210101-RT
D.R.O. DOCKET NO.:
BC 210293-OM
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner tenants filed timely Petitions for
Administrative Review against an order issued May 9, 1989,
concerning the housing accommodations known as 100 Linden Boulevard,
Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Administrator approved the owner's
application and authorized rent increases based on major capital
improvements.
The applicable law is Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code
and Section 2202.4 of the Rent & Eviction Regulations.
The owner commenced these proceedings below on June 22, 1987 by
filing an application to increase rentals based on the installation
of a new elevator controller, a new boiler/burner, new aluminum
windows, pointing and waterproofing and new entrance/vestibule
doors. The Administrator approved $112,990.00 of the $113,615.00
costs claimed.
Individual tenants responded alleging, among other items, elevator
problems, improperly hinged entrance doors, roach and rodent
infestation, and lack of adequate heat and hot water. The tenant of
one apartment 5-B alleged leaks from above.
The owner responded that individual tenants' complaints had been
addressed and that the tenant of apartment 5B had signed off on the
repairs. In addition, the owner advised the Administrator of
imminent elevator work previously scheduled.
An inspection was conducted on March 31, 1989 by a member of the
Division's inspection staff. The inspector reported that the
elevator was working properly, that heat and hot water was adequate,
that windows were repaired or adjusted, and that the vestibule door
was properly locked. The inspector noted, however, that the
bathroom ceiling and walls of apartment 5-B had peeling paint and
plaster and was water stained.
On May 9, 1989, the Administrator issued the orders herein under
Adm. Review Docket Nos.: DE 210369-RT, et al.
review finding that the installations qualified as major capital
improvements, determining that the application complied with
relevant laws and regulations based upon the supporting
documentation submitted by the owner including necessary government
signoff, and allowing appropriate rent increases.
The tenants filed individual petitions alleging various apartment
and building-wide service decreases more fully set forth below.
Several tenants alleged that certain building-wide services were
inadequate in that plumbing was defective, causing leaks to various
apartments, that there was roach and and rodent infestation, that
the electrical wiring was inadequate, that heat and hot water were
inadequate, that windows were drafty, and that elevator service was
erratic.
Some tenants alleged individual apartment service decreases,
including, among other items, defective refrigerators, inoperative
toilets, cracked bathroom tiles and a defective apartment door lock.
The owner addresses each petition individually and in detail. In
essence, the owner asserts that the petitioners fail to allege
errors of law or fact below, that service issues were raised which
were not relevant to the underlying order and that administrative
appeals were filed merely to confuse and to frustrate the owner.
The owner observes that both the City Office of Code Enforcement
and the Division found heat and hot water, and elevator service to
be adequate.
As to individual services, the owner asserts that service complaints
are addressed promptly and that it provides monthly exterminating
service, but that some problems persisted because of the tenants'
refusal to permit access to the owner's agents. Documentation was
submitted, in the form of plumbing and exterminating notices,
invoices, mailgrams, tenant sign-offs, etc., to establish the
owner's efforts to address various problems reported by tenants.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the tenants' petitions should be denied.
Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code provides for rent
increases for the installation of major capital improvement, if,
among other items, they are required for the operation, preservation
and maintenance of services. A new burner/boiler and new aluminum
windows, new entrance and vestibule doors, pointing and water
proofing and a new elevator controller ahve previously been held to
meet the criteria promulgated pursuant to the regulations to qualify
a major capital improvements. Such installations also constitute
Adm. Review Docket Nos.: DE 210369-RT, et al.
major capital improvements pursuant to Section 2202.4 of the Rent &
Eviction Regulations.
Turning to the allegations of service reductions, the Commissioner
finds that, in the absence of rent reduction orders based on the
owner's failure to maintain required services, issued against the
subject premises, or of any application pending at the time the
order appealed herein was issued, and in light of the inspection
report below finding services to have been adequate, the bare
allegations at PAR of decreased services do not warrant
reconsideration of the Administrator's determination below. Nor are
administrative appeals the proper vehicle to raise individual
service complaints unrelated to the application below.
However, the order is issued without prejudice to the rights of the
tenants to file complaints for present service reductions upon
proper application by the tenants to the Administrator, as the fact
may warrant. If the owner has not corrected the conditions found by
the inspector in apartment 5B, the Administrator may, at his
discretion, consider a retroactive rent reduction, upon proper
application by that tenant to the Administrator.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, and the City Rent Law and Regulations,
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
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
