STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: DG110279RT
PATRIA LUNA RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BF110201OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 17, 1989, the above named petitioner-tenant timely filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on
June 12, 1989, by the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New
York) concerning the housing accommodations known as 35-51 95th
Street, Jackson Heights, New York, various apartments, wherein the
Administrator authorized a rent increase adjustment for the
installation of new windows, a roof, waterproofing, an intercom
system, and doors. The Administrator denied the owner a rent
increase for the claimed costs of the following items: a
boiler/burner; gates and deck; and mailboxes.
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 this administrative appeal.
The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing its MCI
application in June of 1987.
Various tenants responded thereto, stating among other things, that
the work completed represented necessary building maintenance as
several items were in a deteriorated condition beyond repair.
On June 12, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review which granted in part the owner's MCI application.
In this petition for administrative review, the tenant (Apt. B3)
contends, in substance, that the water pressure is inadequate; the
building entrance doors are not secure (unlocked and open); and
rodent infestation is present in the apartment.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this administrative appeal
should be denied.
It is the established position of the Division that the work
recognized by the Administrator meets the definitional requirements
of a major capital improvement for which a rent increase may be
warranted, if the owner otherwise so qualifies. The record shows
that the owner submitted copies of the contracts, contractors'
certifications and cancelled checks which indicate that the owner
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DG110279RT
correctly complied with the applicable procedures for a major
capital improvement rent increase and that the increase was
properly computed based on the proven cost of the installation.
The tenant, on the other hand, has failed to establish either in
the proceeding below or on appeal the alleged inadequacy of the
work performed or that services were not being maintained. In this
respect, it is significant to note that the records of the Division
disclose that no rent reduction order has been issued against the
subject premises based on the owner's failure to maintain services
of a building-wide nature nor was any such complaint pending at the
time the order appealed herein was issued. The tenant has failed
to establish that the Administrator's order should be revoked.
The Commissioner further notes that the tenant's allegation
concerning insecure building entrance doors and rodent infestation
were raised for the first time on appeal.
However, as provided for in the Administrator's order, if a rent
reduction order is in effect for any individual apartment
based on the owner's failure to maintain services, the rent
increase provided for therein is not collectible until there is a
finding that services to that apartment have been restored at which
time the increase is collectible on a prospective basis only. (Any
portion of the MCI rent increase which has taken effect prior to
the effective date of the rent reduction is collectible by the
In this regard the records of the Division disclose that a rent
reduction order (Docket No. AC110629S issued April 17, 1989)
remains outstanding against the subject apartment (B-3).
The determination herein is issued without prejudice to the
tenant's right to file a rent overcharge complaint, if the facts so
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 Eviction Regulations for the
City of New York, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby
is, denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the
same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA