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
      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: DL 410099-RT
                                          :  
         DANIEL W. EVANS                     RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             DOCKET NO.: ZDA 430042-OM
                            PETITIONER    : 
      ------------------------------------X                             

            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 
      (MCI's).

      The issue in this appeal is whether the Rent Administrator's order was 
      warranted.

      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 
      Code.

      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' 
      consent.

      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.

      ISSUED:










                                                                    
                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       Acting 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