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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: DL 410099-RT
DANIEL W. EVANS RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: ZDA 430042-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner-tenant filed a timely petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on November 13, 1989 by the
Rent Administrator, Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York concerning housing
accommodations known as 21 East 7th Street, New York, New York, Apartment
1, wherein the Administrator granted the owner's application for a rent
increase based on the installation of various major capital improvements
The issue in this appeal is whether the Rent Administrator's order was
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues
raised by this administrative appeal.
The applicable section of law is Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization
The owner commenced this proceeding on January 9, 1989 by filing an
application for rent increase by reason of the installation of a new roof
at a total cost of $6,100.00 and new windows at a total cost of $7,100.00.
The tenants were served with a copy of the application and afforded an
opportunity to respond.
In response to the owner's application, several tenants, including the
petitioner, alleged that the said roof replacement was not performed on
this building but instead on 23 East 7th Street. The tenants alleged that
the only roof work performed on their building was a coating of tar and new
paint. The tenants also alleged that the owner did not receive their
consent to install windows. The owner did not respond to these complaints.
On November 13, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review, finding that the installations qualified as MCI's, determining that
the application complied with the relevant laws and regulations based upon
the supporting documentation submitted by the owner, and allowing rent
increases for rent controlled and rent stabilized tenants.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DL 410099-RT
In this petition, the tenant contends in substance that a new roof was not
installed on 21 East 7th Street, but rather two "futures" were installed
and the roof was painted. The petitioner-tenant also contends that the
tenants of 21 East 7th Street are being charged for the roof installed at
23 East 7th Street instead of work done at their building, and that the
tenants did not consent to new windows.
In answer thereto, the owner alleges in substance that the tenant's
petition should be dismissed because the issues were not raised below. The
owner also states that the contractor installed roofs on both 21 East 7th
Street and 23 East 7th Street and that a rent increase was granted by DHCR
under Docket NO. CE 430020-OM for work on 23 East 7th Street. Lastly, the
owner asserts that he has the right to install windows without the tenants'
After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner is of
the opinion that this petition should be denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by Section
2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code. Under rent stabilization, the
improvement must generally be building-wide; depreciable under the Internal
Revenue Code; other than ordinary repairs; required for the operation,
preservation and maintenance of the structure; and replace an item whose
useful life has expired.
The record in the instant case indicates that the owner correctly complied
with the application procedures for an MCI and the Rent Administrator
properly computed the appropriate rent increase. The tenant has not
established that the increase should be revoked.
The record discloses that the owner substantiated its application in the
proceeding below by submitting to the Administrator documentation in
support of its application, including the contractor's certifications,
copies of contracts, invoices, estimates, proposals, and cancelled checks
for the work in question. On the other hand, the tenant has submitted on
this appeal no evidence to support any of his allegations.
The Commissioner notes that in a separate proceeding under Docket No. CE
430020-OM, the owner was also granted a rent increase based upon the
installation of a new roof at the adjacent building (23 East 7th Street).
With respect to tenant's objection to the new windows, the Commissioner
notes that the owner does not need the tenant's consent to install a new
roof and windows when the installations meet the criteria for an MCI
increase as stated in Section 2522.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code.
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the tenant's appeal must fail.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DL 410099-RT
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and that
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner