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






    

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