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
    

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