ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DE210465RT, 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.: 
                                              :  DE210465RT/DF220140RT/
            VARIOUS TENANTS OF                   DG210139RT/DG210275RT/
            7609 4TH AVENUE                      DG210301RT/DG220302RT/
            BROOKLYN, NEW YORK                   DG210320RT/DG210321RT/
                                PETITIONERS   :  DG210411RT
          ------------------------------------X  

                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: BD230268OM

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The petitioner-tenants timely filed administrative appeals against 
          an order issued on May 10, 1989, by the Rent Administrator (92-31 
          Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 7609 4th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 
          various apartments, wherein the Administrator granted major capital 
          improvement (MCI) rent increases for the controlled and stabilized 
          apartments in the subject premises based on the installation of a 
          new intercom system, rewiring, pointing, waterproofing, entrance 
          doors, boiler, burner, and apartment and public hallway windows.

          The owner commenced this proceeding below by filing its MCI 
          application on April 15, 1987.  In support of its application, the 
          owner submitted copies of the contracts, contractors' 
          certifications, invoices, government approvals and cancelled 
          checks.            

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenants state, in substance, that A) the 
          work should be considered as repairs and maintenance; B) the MCI 
          increase should not become part of the base rent; C) the boiler was 
          installed more than three (3) years prior to the filing date of the 
          MCI application; D) the work in question was already installed when 
          the tenant of apartment C4 commenced occupancy and her initial rent
          included the improvements.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that these administrative appeals 
          should be denied.

          The record confirms that the MCI application was received by the 
          Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) on April 15, 1987. 
          The undisputed completion date of the boiler and burner, as 




          indicated on the contractor's certification, is December 28, 1985, 
          and is further supported by cancelled checks.  Therefore, the 
          Commissioner finds that the owner did file its application within 







          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DE210465RT, et al.

          two years after the completion of the boiler/burner installation as 
          required by Section 2522.4(a)(8) of the Rent Stabilization Code. In 
          any event, the Commissioner notes that Section 2522.4 (a) (8) did 
          not become effective until August 1, 1987 pursuant to DHCR's 
          Advisory Opinion 87-1. Additionally, the fact that a prior owner 
          may have installed the boiler does not prevent the current owner 
          from collecting the MCI rent increase for the boiler.

          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 be generally 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. 

          It is the established position of the Division that the work 
          performed meets the definitional requirement of a major capital 
          improvement for which a rent increase may be warranted.  The record 
          shows that the owner properly substantiated its application in the 
          proceeding below by submitting copies of the contracts, 
          contractors' certifications, cancelled checks and government 
          approvals. On the other hand, the tenants have not established that 
          the increase should be revoked.

          The petitioners' claim that the rent increase should be eliminated 
          upon the expiration of the amortization period is rejected because 
          the New York State Court of Appeals in the case of Matter of 
          Ansonia Residents Association v. DHCR ruled that the rent 
          regulatory laws mandate that the increase be permanent.

          Regarding the contention of the tenant of apartment C4 that she 
          took occupancy after the installations were completed, the 
          Commissioner notes that such contention is not sufficient to 
          obviate the tenant's obligation to pay rent increases duly approved 
          by the Division.  However, since this apartment was previously 
          occupied as a stabilized unit, the rent increase was not legally 
          collectible prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order.  
          Where the tenant took occupancy pursuant to a vacancy lease 
          commencing after the owner had filed its application, the 
          Commissioner notes that for the MCI increase granted by the 
          Administrator's order to be collectible during the term of the 
          tenant's vacancy lease, such vacancy lease would have to contain a 
          specific clause advising the tenant of the pending proceeding and 
          advising that the rent charged was subject to an additional 



          increase (during the current lease term in effect) as provided by 
          Section 2522.4(a)(5) of the Rent Stabilization Code and established 
          Division precedent.  In the absence of same, said increase is not 
          collectible until the expiration of the lease term in effect at the 
          time of issuance of the MCI order, provided the renewal lease 
          contains a general authorization provision for adjustment of the 


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DE210465RT, et al.

          rent reserved by DHCR order.  The owner's violation of Section 
          2522.4(a)(5) of the Code could result in an overcharge 
          determination.  This order and opinion is issued without prejudice 
          to the tenant's right to file an individual rent overcharge 
          complaint, if the facts so warrant.

          Finally, the Commissioner notes that, pursuant to Policy Statement 
          90-8, the owner may not collect any increase provided for in the 
          Administrator's order with respect to any individual apartment 
          during the period of time a rent reduction order based on a failure 
          to maintain services is in effect where the effective dates of such 
          rent reduction order is prior to the issuance date of the MCI 
          order, until such time as there is a finding by DHCR that services 
          have been restored.

          On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the 
          Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations for 
          the City of New York, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

          ORDERED, that these administrative appeals be, and the same hereby 
          are denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is affirmed.

          ISSUED:












                                                                        
                                               Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                               Deputy Commissioner






                          
           

                                ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                OWNER MULTIPLE BUREAU
                                 COVERING MEMORANDUM










          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DE210465RT, et al.

          PAR Docket Nos.:  DE210465RT/DF220140RT/DG210139RT/DG210275RT/
                            DG210301RT/DG220302RT/DG210320RT/DG210321RT
                            DG210411RT

          Rent Administrator's    
          Docket No.:       BD230268OM

          Tenant(s):        VARIOUS

          Owner:            CASTLE COURT PARTNERS

          Code Section:     RENT STABILIZATION CODE; 2522.4
                            RENT AND EVICTION REGULATIONS; 2202.4 
                         
          Premises:         7609 4TH AVENUE, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW      


          THE COMMISSIONER NOTES THAT THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW INTERCOM 
          SYSTEM, ELECTRICAL REWIRING, POINTING, WATERPROOFING, ENTRANCE 
          DOORS, BOILER, BURNER, APARTMENT AND PUBLIC HALLWAY WINDOWS 
          QUALIFIES FOR A MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT RENT INCREASE.


          APPROVED:


          Processing Attorney:                                               

          Supervising Attorney:                                              

          Director:                                                          

          Bureau Chief:                                                      

          Deputy Commissioner:                                              

          Mailed copies of Order and Determination to:
                           Tenant(s)                 
                           Owner                     
                           Tenant's Atty             
                           Owner's Atty              


                           Date:              :  by               
                                                    signature
                    
                                       
    

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