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.: DJ420025RT
DON & DEBORAH DOUGLASS RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BG410356OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 17, 1989, the above named petitioner-tenants timely filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on
September 15, 1989, by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodations known as 139 East 30th Street, Apartment 4A, New York, New
York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the landlord was
entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of a major capital
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issue
raised by this administrative appeal.
The landlord commenced this proceeding on July 24, 1987, by filing an
application for a rent increase based on the installation of the following
MCIs at a total cost of $53,800.00: a) boiler/burner; and b) replacement
The tenants did not submit an objection to the landlord's application
although afforded the opportunity to do so.
On September 15, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review finding that the installations qualified as MCIs, determining that
the application complied with the relevant laws and regulations based upon
the supporting documentation submitted by the landlord, and allowing
appropriate rent increases for rent controlled and rent stabilized tenants.
In this petition the tenants state that the improvements were made by the
In response to the tenants' petition, the landlord contends, in substance,
that it has complied with DHCR regulations with respect to applying for the
rent increase herein; that the previous landlord had not filed an
application for the MCIs herein; and that the PAR should be denied because
the tenants' argument has no merit.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DJ420025RT
The landlord has the right to file for a major capital improvement rent
increase for improvements made by a prior landlord where the previous
landlord did not do so. Similarly, the new landlord would have been
eligible to collect the rent increase herein if the previous landlord had
commenced the proceeding prior to the sale of the premises.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the New York City Rent and Eviction
Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and that
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA