DI 210113 RT, DJ 210085 RT, DK 210344 RT
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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.: DI 210113 RT
DJ 210085 RT
DK 210344 RT
DRO DOCKET NO.: BD 230233 OM
Premises: 100 Woodruff Avenue
PETITIONERS Brooklyn, New York
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenants timely filed, or refiled petitions for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above described docket number. The
petitions are being consolidated for disposition as they contain
similar issues of law or fact.
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 petitions.
The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing an application
for a rent increase based on various major capital improvements,
to wit-boiler/burner, windows, lobby and entrance doors, elevator
Each tenant was served with a copy of the owner's application and
was afforded an opportunity to review it and comment thereupon.
The petitioner-tenants did not file an objection to the owner's
application although afforded the opportunity to do so.
Thereafter, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review finding that the installation qualified as a major capital
improvement, determining that the application complied with the
relevant laws and regulations based upon the supporting documenta
tion submitted by the owner, and allowing appropriate rent in
creases. The Rent Administrator disallowed any rent increase for
In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request
review of the Rent Administrator's order and asserts, that the
windows were not requested, however were required to be replaced
since the old windows were drafty, that there was no hot water for
one month, that the old boiler/burner was not producing enough
heat, that the elevator is defective, that the lobby door lock is
defective, that a refrigerator is defective, and that a
petitioner-tenant's apartment is three and one-half rooms, not
four rooms as the owner claims.
DI 210113 RT, DJ 210085 RT, DK 210344 RT
The owner interposed answers to the tenant's petitions contending
that no prior consent from the tenants are necessary to be
eligible for increases based upon the MCI's installed, that the
tenants never raised an objection below, that the oil burner and
hot water motor are professionally maintained by a heating
company, that the doors and elevator are in proper working
condition, that apartment 3C is four rooms plus a bathroom,
however the tenant is exempt from the rent increase based upon a
Rent Administrator's order rolling back the rent.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that these petitions should be denied.
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, preserva
tion, or maintenance of the structure. 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 will not entertain the tenant's assertions
raised for the first time on appeal. The tenants was afforded an
opportunity to file an objection before the Administrator. The
tenants have not established that the increase should be revoked.
This order is issued without prejudice to the tenants' right to
file an application for a rent reduction based upon a decrease in
services, should the facts so warrant.
In regard to the one tenant's claim that the owner is improperly
collecting a rent increase, the tenant is advised that the owner
is liable for damages pursuant to a rent overcharge complaint
filed with this Division. However, such collection does not
constitute an error in the Administrator's order.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA