DL 410092-RT, ET AL
                                  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.: DL 410092-RT
                                                              DL 410111-RT
                                                              DL 410112-RT
            MILLAR, REYNOLDS, LASZLO,                         DL 410113-RT
            MANNING, DIXEY, KFOURY,                           DL 410172-RT
                                                
                                                 DRO DOCKET NO.: BF 410199 OM 
                                                  
                                                 Premises: 1427 Second Avenue
                              PETITIONERS                  New York, New York
          -----------------------------------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 petitions.

          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.

          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 petitions for administrative review, the tenants  request
          reversal  of  the  Rent  Administrator's  order  and  allege,   in
          pertinent part, that many windows are defective, that the  windows
          are unsafe against burglars, that  the  tenants  did  not  have  a
          choice of having new windows, that the old  windows  were  in  bad
          condition, that there was  no  indication  that  the  installation
          could result in a permanent rent increase, and that it  is  unfair
          for the tenants to pay in excess of cost  for  improvements.   One
          petitioner-tenant alleged that their initial lease did not contain 
          any notice of the pending MCI  application,  therefore  should  be
          exempt from the arrears and attached to the petition is a copy  of
          their lease.






          DL 410092-RT, ET AL


          The owner interposed answers to the tenants' petitions  contending
          in pertinent part, that the tenants' petitions did not  raise  any
          relevant issues and  therefore  should  be  denied,  that  the  Ad
          ministrator after considering the entire matter approved  the  MCI
          application, that the  tenants  agreed  to  be  bound  by  the  Ad
          ministrator's determination by signing their original lease  which
          notes, that where an owner, upon application to DHCR is  found  to
          be entitled to an increase, and such determination is  binding  on
          the tenant and the owner.  In regard to the tenants' allegation of 
          defective windows, the matter  will  be  investigated  by  a  main
          tenance person.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion
          that this petition 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
          tenants have not established that the increase should be revoked.

          As to the tenant's contention pertaining to the  permanent  nature
          of the increases granted,  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  has
          concluded recently that the Rent Stabilization Law authorized this 
          Division to grant permanent rent increases for MCI's and that  the
          law does not limit the time during  which  the  increases  can  be
          imposed.  In the Matter of Ansonia Residents Association, et  al.,
          v. DHCR, et al., 74 N.Y. 2d 604, 543 N.Y.S. 2d 397 (1989).

          In regard to the tenant's 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.

          This order is issued without prejudice to the tenants' right to 






          DL 410092-RT, ET AL


          file an application for a rent reduction based upon a decrease  in
          services, should the facts so warrant.


          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