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
|
