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
|
