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 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET Nos.: DK210231RT,
APPEALS OF EA210088RT, EA210150RT,
VARIOUS TENANTS OF EA210152RT, EA210220RT,
2709 OCEAN AVENUE EA210230RT, EA210254RT,
BROOKLYN, NY EA210264RT
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BC230258OM
PETITIONERS
-------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On various dates, the above named petitioner-tenants timely filed
or re-filed petitions for administrative review (PARs) against an
order issued on November 21, 1989, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz
Plaza) concerning the housing accommodations known as 2709 Ocean
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, various apartments, wherein the Rent
Administrator granted, in part, the owner's application for a rent
increase based on the installation of a major capital improvement
(MCI).
The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these
petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same order and
involve common issues of law and 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 these administrative appeals.
The owner commenced this proceeding on March 27, 1987 by initially
filing an application for a rent increase based on the installation
of the following items at a total cost of $70,793.00: new roof, an
oil burner/boiler, building entrance and vestibule doors and cement
sidewalk.
Various tenants responded objecting to the increase, alleging
inadequate heat and hot water, defective intercom and claiming that
the roof was not installed in a workmanlike manner.
Physical inspections of the subject premises occurred on August 28,
1989 and September 1, 1989 wherein the inspector found that the
inspected apartments had adequate hot water and water pressure,
that the intercom was working except in one apartment and that only
apartment F-9 showed evidence of a leak in the ceiling.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DK-210088-RT ET. AL.
Subsequently, the owner responded to the tenants objections and the
inspections claiming to have repaired the above mentioned
conditions and submitted signed statements from tenants stating
repairs were performed.
On November 21, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order
granting in part the owner's application and authorized an increase
based upon approved cost of $61,533.00 upon finding that the new
roof, the oil burner/boiler and the building entrance and vestibule
doors qualified as MCIs based upon the supporting documentation
submitted by the owner. Disallowed by the Administrator was the
claimed cost of $9,260.00 for the cement sidewalk upon finding the
work did not qualify as an MCI.
In these petitions, the tenants contend, in substance, that the
improvements were made as part of basic services and should already
be included in the rent. One tenant alleges that the boiler/burner
only slightly improved the provision of hot water recently and
claims that tenants should not have to pay the retroactive
increase.
In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner contends, in
substance, that the tenants' responses show that work was
necessary.
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, preservation,
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 record in the instant case indicates that the owner correctly
complied with the application procedures for a major capital
improvement. The owner substantiated its application in the
proceeding below by submitting to the Administrator documentation
in support of the application, including the contractor's
certifications, copies of contracts, invoices, estimates, cancelled
checks, and the necessary governmental approvals and sign-offs for
the work in question. The Rent Administrator properly computed the
appropriate rent increases. The tenants have not established that
the increase should be revoked.
2
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DK-210088-RT ET. AL.
The tenants' contention that the owner should not be entitled to a
rent increase because the installations did not increase services,
but replaced existing services, is without merit. The work in
question meets the criteria for an MCI as stated in Section 2522.4
of the Rent Stabilization Code and Section 2202.4 of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations as set forth above, and it has been the long-
standing policy of the Division to consider the installation of a
new roof, burner/boiler, and building entrance and vestibule doors
to qualify as MCIs'.
With regard to the tenant's allegation that the burner/boiler has
not worked efficiently until recently, the Commissioner notes that
physical inspections by the DHCR found hot water and water pressure
to be adequate. On the other hand, the tenant has not submitted on
this appeal evidence to support his allegation.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied;
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
____________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
3
|
