DK 210307-RT;  DK 210270-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 210307-RT             
             JOYCE SMITH and OSCAR LOUIS,     DK 210270-RT
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     CK 230179-OM        
          ----------------------------------x


            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
          thereupon.



          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-
          ments.  

          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
          considered herein.

          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
          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