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.:  DK410069RT,
          APPEALS OF                               DK410070RT,   DK410071RT,
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             DK410072RT,   DK410073RT,
                    205 WEST 10TH STREET           DK410138RT
                    NEW YORK, NY
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  CL430186OM

                                   PETITIONERS
          -------------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named petitioner-tenants timely filed petitions for 
          administrative review (PARs) against an order issued on October 13,  
          1989, by the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza), concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 205 West 10th Street, New York, NY,  
          various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator authorized major 
          capital improvement (MCI) rent increases for the installation of 
          new replacement windows and a new boiler/burner including hot water 
          heater.

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          petitions for determination as they involve common issues of law 
          and fact.

          On appeal, the petitioners contend, in substance, that the old 
          windows and the boiler/burner were in good working condition and 
          thus did not require replacement; that some of the replacement 
          windows are inoperative and defective; that the windows in the 
          hallways were not replaced and that the costs of the installations 
          are excessive.  The tenant of apartment 1C asserts that the room- 
          count for her respective apartment is incorrect.  The tenant of 
          apartment 3C contends, in substance, that the rent increase granted 
          should neither be permanent nor exceed the statutory annual limit 
          of six percent.

          In response to the petitions, the owner urges the denial of the 
          tenants' petitions stating, in substance, that it fully complied 
          with all the requirements for MCI increase eligibility.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be 
          denied.












          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DK-410069-RT ET. AL.

          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.  Piecemeal work 
          or ordinary repairs and maintenance does not constitute work for 
          which a rent increase adjustment is warranted under current and 
          past procedures.

          It is the established position of the Division that the 
          installation of new replacement windows to replace windows which 
          are twenty-five years old or older as well as the installation of 
          a new heating system constitute major capital improvements for 
          which a rent increase adjustment may be warranted.  The record in 
          the proceeding below discloses that the owner substantiated its 
          application by submitting to the Administrator documentation in 
          support thereof, including copies of the contracts, invoices, 
          cancelled checks and governmental approvals and sign-offs for the 
          installation and operation of the heating system.  The 
          Administrator's order was issued after a physical inspection of the 
          premises which disclosed that the tenants' complaints had been 
          resolved or that the objections were groundless.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the opinion and finds that the 
          Administrator properly found that the work in question qualified as 
          a major capital improvement for which an appropriate rent increase 
          was granted based on the cost thereof.

          With respect to the six percent rent increase limitation, the 
          Administrator properly determined the dollar amount of the monthly 
          rent adjustment in accordance with the total number of rooms in the 
          building as required by the Rent Law and Code.  Nevertheless, the 
          collection of the rent increase granted is limited to and shall not 
          exceed 6% of the rent charged on the December, 1988 rent roll date 
          in any 12 month period with a similar limitation on the collection 
          of temporary arrears.  The corresponding limitation for rent 
          controlled apartments is fifteen percent.  Also, the New York Court 
          of Appeals has concluded that the Rent Stabilization Law authorized 
          this Division to grant permanent rent increases for major capital 
          improvements; and that the law does not limit the time during which 
          the increase can be imposed.  In the Matter of Ansonia Residents 
          Association, el al., V. DHCR, et al., 75 N.Y. 2d 208, 551 N.Y.S. 2d 
          871 (1989).


                                          2






          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DK-410069-RT ET. AL.

          As to the tenant's assertion on appeal with respect to the room 
          count, the Commissioner notes that this claim was not raised in the 
          proceeding before the Administrator and is therefore inappopriate 
          for consideration at this level.

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the tenants' 
          filing complaints with the Division for service reductions and/or 
          rent overcharges, if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, and the New York City Rent Law and 
          Regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that these administrative appeals 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