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

          -------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF
                    JENNIE LEBWOHL                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  BB430199OM



          The above named petitioner-owner timely filed a petition for 
          administrative review of a Rent Administrator's order bearing the- 
          above-referenced docket number which denied, in part, the owner's 
          application to increase the rents based upon a claim that a major 
          capital improvement was made to the building.

          In the application, concerning the premises located at 105 East 
          63rd Street New York, NY, the owner requested a rent increase based 
          upon the installation of the following items at a total cost of 

          1)   new controller/selector for elevator
          2)   elevator cab refurbishment
          3)   vandal proof push-button station for elevator, and 
          4)   new roof 

          On October 2, 1989, the Rent Administrator granted, in part, the 
          owner's MCI application based on total approved costs of $17,000.00 
          finding that the owner was not entitled to receive a rent increase 
          for the following items:  

          1)   cab refurbishment
          2)   vandal proof push-button station, and 
          3)   new roof

          The petitioner challenges the Rent Administrator's denial of the 
          items related to the elevator upgrading contending, in substance, 
          that the components of the installation meet the definitional 
          requirements of an MCI; and that the cab refurbishment was done in 
          conjunction with the elevator upgrading.

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DJ-430148-RO

          In response to the owner's petition, the tenants contend, in 
          substance, that the amount claimed for the elevator cab 
          refurbishment seems excessive for the quality of the materials 
          used; that several tenants have not had the opportunity to review 
          the complete application below; that the light fixture in the 
          elevator is inadequate; that there is a lack of understanding with 
          respect to what constitutes "refurbishment"; that two (2) of the 
          tenants are Senior Citizens who have paid a certain amount towards 
          the elevator refurbishment; that said refurbishment constitutes 
          ordinary repairs and/or maintenance with no direct benefit to the 
          tenants; and that the owner is not maintaining building services. 

          After considering that portion of the record relevant to the issues 
          raised by this petition, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          the petition should be remanded to the Rent Administrator for 
          further processing in accordance with this order and opinion.

          It appears from the record that the Administrator denied that 
          portion of the owner's application which pertain to cab 
          refurbishment and the installation of a vandal proof push-button 
          station based upon the conclusion that these components of the 
          elevator upgrading were not performed within a reasonable time 
          frame to have been considered as done in conjunction with the 
          installation of a new controller/selector, the main prerequisite of 
          an elevator modernization which also included new cables, door 
          operator, and car door tracks and hangers.  Although the Rent 
          Administrator's order states that the controller/selector was 
          installed in 1983, the refurbishment in 1986 and the vandal proof 
          push-button station in 1985, a review of the record indicates that 
          the controller/selector was actually installed in October of 1985 
          and the other components of the elevator upgrading were contracted 
          for either while the work was in progress or completed within a 
          period of  months sufficiently contemporaneous to the primary 
          installation as not to constitute piecemeal repairs.  

          Accordingly, the Commissioner deems it appropriate to remand this 
          proceeding to the Administrator for such further processing as may 
          be deemed necessary, upon notification to all tenants who should be 
          afforded a further opportunity to examine the record should they so 
          desire, and to issue such increases as may be found warranted in 
          order to effectuate the determination herein.


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DJ-430148-RO

          The Commissioner notes that this order and opinion is issued 
          without prejudice to the right of the tenants to file apartment 
          service complaints (individual repairs) or building-wide service 
          complaints (elevator light fixture) which may result in reductions 
          from the current rents, if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted to 
          the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator 
          for such further processing as may be deemed necessary in 
          accordance with this order of the Commissioner.


                                                         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