DK 210251-RT, DK 210230-RT, DL 210117-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
          APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.: DK 210251-RT
                                                              DK 210230-RT
                                                              DL 210117-RT
            HOCHMAN/ BARON/ FRANK,              
                                                 DRO DOCKET NO.: CL 230226-OM 
                                                  
                                                 Premises: 2323 East 12 Street
                                                           Brooklyn, New York
                                                           Apts. 3J, 3D, 5J
                               PETITIONERS   
          -----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named tenants timely filed petitions for  administrative
          review of an order issued concerning  the  housing  accommodations
          relating to the above described docket number.        

          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.

          The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing an  application
          for a rent increase based on a major capital improvement,  o  wit-
          new windows.
           
          Each tenant was served with a copy of the owner's application  and
          was afforded an opportunity  to  review  it  and  object  thereto.
                                                                          
          The petitioner-tenants did not file an objection  to  the  owner's
          application although afforded  the  opportunity  to  do  so.   The
          record discloses that various other tenants  filed  objections  to
          the owner's applications.

          Thereafter, the Rent Administrator issued  the  order  here  under
          review finding that the installation qualified as a major  capital
          improvement, determining that the application  complied  with  the
          relevant laws and regulations based upon the supporting  documenta
          tion submitted by the owner,  and  allowing  appropriate  rent  in
          creases.

          In their petition for administrative review, the  tenants  request
          modification of the Rent Administrator's  order  and  assert  that
          they are being charged a rent increase for three rooms per  month,
          although the installation of windows were performed in two  rooms.







          DK 210251-RT, DK 210230-RT, DL 210117-RT

          One tenant asserts that he  is  a  senior  citizen  and  the  rent
          increase would be a burden.

          The owner interposed answers to the tenants' petitions contending, 
          in pertinent part, that the tenant in apartment 3D is being billed 
          the rent increase for two rooms  contrary  to  the  tenant's  bare
          allegation.  The other petitioner-tenants  are  being  billed  the
          rent increase for three  rooms  accordingly.   The  owner  further
          states, that the window that was not replaced   is  a  fire-window
          known as a lot window, that DHCR granted the owner an increase per 
          room and not based upon the number of windows per apartment.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion
          that these petitions should be denied.

          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,  preserva
          tion, 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 Commissioner will not entertain the tenants' assertions raised 
          for the first time  on  appeal.   The  tenants  were  afforded  an
          opportunity to file an objection before  the  Administrator.   The
          tenant has not established that the increase should be revoked.

          With regard to the tenant stating that he is a senior citizen  and
          the rent increase would be a burden.  The  tenant  is  advised  to
          contact the New York City Department of Housing, Preservation  and
          Development  and  apply  for  the  senior  citizen  rent  increase
          exemption.

          Pursuant to Chapter 737 of the Laws of 1986,  effective  September
          1, 1986,  a  tenant  of  a  rent  controlled  or  rent  stabilized
          apartment in New York City who qualifies for a Senior Citizen Rent 
          Increase Exemption Order will  be  exempt  from  a  rent  increase
          attributable to the installation of a  major  capital  improvement
          granted since the tenant's "Eligibility" date to the  extent  such
          rent increases causes the tenant's rent to exceed mo e  than  one-
          third of the tenant's monthly disposable household income.

          In regard to the tenants' claim that the owner  is  collecting  an
          improper rent, the tenant is advised that the owner is liable  for
          damages pursuant to a rent overcharge complaint  filed  with  this
          Division.  However, such collection does not constitute  an  error
          in the Administrator's order here under review.






          DK 210251-RT, DK 210230-RT, DL 210117-RT



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

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,  denied
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and  the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:




                                                                        
                                          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