DI 110140-RT


                                  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 NO.:   
                                                  DI 110140-RT             
                   PEDRO ARANGO,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     BB 130124-OM        
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On September 19, 1989, the above-named tenant,  refiled  a  peti-
          tion for administrative review of an order  issued  on  June  20,
          1989, by a Rent Administrator concerning t e  housing  accommoda-
          tion known as Apartment 4DS, 37-36 88th Street, Jackson  Heights,
          New York, wherein the  Rent  Administrator  determined  that  the
          owner was entitled to a rent  increase  based  on  major  capital
          improvements (MCI).

          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 the petition for review.

          The owner commenced this proceeding  on  February  19,  1987,  by
          filing an application for a rent increase based on major  capital
          improvements, to wit - a new roof, oil burner/boiler and replace 
          ment windows, building-wide at a total cost of $78,110.00.

          The owner certified that on April 13, 1987 it served each  tenant
          with a copy of the application and placed a copy  of  the  entire
          application including all  required  supplements  and  supporting
          documentation with the resident  superintendent  of  the  subject
          building.  



          The tenant interposed an objection  to  the  owner's  application
          alleging in substance that the new installations were not needed.

          On June 20, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued  the  order  here
          under review finding that the installations  qualified  as  major
          capital improvements, determining that the  application  complied
          with the relevant laws and regulations based upon the  supporting
          documentation submitted by the owner,  and  allowing  appropriate
          rent increases for rent stabilized apartments.  







          DI 110140-RT
                         
          In his petition for administrative review,  the  tenant  requests
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges  that  the
          installations were required  maintenance  and  not  improvements,
          that his lease does  not  contain  a  provision  authorizing  the
          collection of an increase pursuant to a DHCR order, and that  the
          increase exceeds six percent of rent.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are  authorized  by
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabil-
          ized apartments.  Under rent stabilization, the improvement  must
          generally  be  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.

          The Commissioner notes that the owner's installations  constitute
          improvements and  not  regular  maintenance  as  alleged  by  the
          tenant.  The Commissioner further notes that the  Administrator's
          order provided that the  ordered  increase  was  not  collectible
          during the term of the current lease unless the lease contains  a
          provision authorizing collection of an  increase  pursuant  to  a
          DHCR order.  Since the tenant has not submitted  a  copy  of  his
          lease, resolution of this issue cannot be determined herein.  The 
          tenant may, however, file an overcharge complaint  if  the  owner
          commenced collection of the increase during a lease term and  the
          lease does not contain the requisite clause.  The Administrator's 
          order also limited the collectibility of the increase in  any  12
          month period to 6% of the rent listed on the Schedule of  Monthly
          Rental  Income  submitted  with  the  owner's  application.   The
          temporary retroactive increase is also limited to  6%.   In  both
          instances the amount which exceeds this limit  is  to  be  spread
          forward to subsequent 12-month periods.  A review of the  owner's
          application reveals that the petitioner's rent was listed as



          $233.18.  The ordered increase of $10.09 per room per  month  for
          this tenant's 3 room apartment  does  exceed  the  prescribed  6%
          limitation.  The owner is cautioned to limit collectibility to 6% 
          in any 12 month period and to spread the remainder  forward.   If
          the owner is not complying with these terms and conditions of the 
          Administrator's order, the tenant is advis d  to  file  an  over-
          charge complaint with the Division.

          The record in the instant case indicates that the owner correctly 
          complied with the application procedures for a major capital 
          improvement and the  Rent  Administrator  properly  computed  the
          appropriate rent increases.  The tenant has not established  that
          the increase should be revoked.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, it is         








          DI 110140-RT
          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,  denied
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                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