DK 110306-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.:   
                                                  DK 110306-RT             
                 DOROTHY ANN TOTO,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER     BA 130134-OM        
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On November 29, 1989, the above-named  tenant  filed  a  petition
          for administrative review of an order issued on November 8, 1989, 
          by a Rent Administrator  concerning  the  housing  accommodation,
          known as Apartment 2-C, 43-19 165th Street, Flushing,  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  January  21,  1987,  by
          filing an application for a rent increase based on major  capital
          improvements, to  wit  -  replacement  heating  system,  windows,
          pointing, intercom bell and buzzer system, and  front  door  with
          lock at a total cost of $43,380.00.

          The owner certified that on March 18, 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 did not file an objection to the  owner's  application
          although afforded the opportunity to do so.

          On November 8, 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 f r  rent  controlled  and  rent  sta-







          DK 110306-RT
          bilized apartments.  
                         
          Increases based on the installation of  the  intercom,  bell  and
          buzzer system, and front door with lock were disallowed.

          In her petition for administrative review,  the  tenant  requests
          reversal of the Rent  Administrator's  order  alleging  that  her
          lease does not  contain  a  provision  permitting  the  owner  to
          collect an increase pursuant to a Division of Housing and 
          Community Renewal (DHCR) order during her current lease term.

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

          The Commissioner  notes  that  the  order  under  review  already
          contains a provision which protects tenants from a rent  increase
          pursuant to DHCR order during the current terms of  their  leases
          unless the lease contains a provision which authorizes  an  owner
          to collect it.  The Commissioner also notes that the  tenant  has
          failed to submit a copy of her lease and that her allegation that 
          her lease does not contain such a provision is otherwise un-
          supported  by  any  substantiating  evidence.   Accordingly,  the
          Commissioner determines that the tenant has offered insufficient
          reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's order.  The tenant  is
          advised to refer to the lease in effect  when  the  increase  was
          ordered to determine whether the increase was collectible  during
          the lease term.  If the  owner  has  collected  an  impermissible
          amount and refused to make an appropriate refund, the tenant  may
          file an overcharge complaint with the Division.













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

          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









          DK 110306-RT
                                          
    

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