OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: DG110279RT
             PATRIA LUNA                         RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: BF110201OM
                                PETITIONER    : 


          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
                                               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