DK 210307-RT; DK 210270-RT
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.:
JOYCE SMITH and OSCAR LOUIS, DK 210270-RT
PETITIONERS CK 230179-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve
common questions of law and fact.
On November 27 and 28, 1989, the above-named tenants, filed peti
tions for administrative review of an order issued on November
22, 1989, by a Rent Administrator concerning the building known
as 708 Ocean Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Re t Admin-
istrator 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 November 22, 1988, by
filing an application for a rent increase based on major capital
improvements, to wit - windows, an intercom, waterproofing,
pointing, and a new roof at a total cost of $49,152.38.
On March 2, 1989, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) served each tenant with a copy of the application and
afforded the tenants the opportunity to review it and comment
The tenant of Apartment 24 did not file an objection to the
owner's application although afforded the opportunity to do so.
The tenant of apartment 34 answered alleging a defective
intercom, a broken window, and flooded halls and stairwells.
On November 22, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order
here under review finding that some of the installations
qualified as major capital improvements, determining that the
application complied with the relevant laws and regulations based
DK 210307-RT; DK 210270-RT
upon the supporting documentation submitted by the owner, and
allowing appropriate rent increases for rent stabilized apart-
Increases based on the roof installation and pointing a d water-
proofing were disallowed.
In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request
modification of the Rent Administrator's order. The tenant of
Apartment 24 alleged the doorbell in his apartment does not work
and that the intercom was not necessary. The tenant of Apartment
34 alleges that the intercom does not work in her 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 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabil-
ized apartments. 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 notes that the tenant of Apartment 24 raised no
objections to the owner's application while this proceeding was
pending before the Rent Administrator even though he was afforded
the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, pursuant to Section
2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code, the objections he raises
now, for the first time on administrative appeal, may not be
In regard to the tenant of Apartment 34, the Commissioner notes
that this tenant failed to respond to the Rent Administrator's
request for additional information mailed on August 2, 1989 and
failed to provide access to this Division's inspector on two
occasions although having been given notice of the inspections.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, 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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA