DL 930137 RT
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 930137 RT
OF THE PREMISES KNOWN AS DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
253 SOUTH LEXINGTON AVENUE DOCKET NO. WCF 830009 OM
WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR REVIEW
On December 13, 1989, the above-described tenants filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on November
28, 1989 by a District Rent Administrator concerning various
housing accommodations in the premises known as 253 South
Lexington Avenue, White Plains, New York, wherein the
Administrator determined that the owner was entitled to a rent
increase based on a Major Capital Improvement (MCI).
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 petition for review.
The owner commenced this proceeding on May 9, 1989 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on major capital
improvements, to wit: a replacement roof, scraping and painting
the fire escape, removing and replacing loose stucco, repairing
parapet walls, resetting coping stones, repointing interior
parapet wall and exterior side to the fourth floor lintel,
repairing decorative gables, removing and rebuilding part of the
parapet wall, and covering existing wood fascia at a total cost
6The owner certified that on January 14, 1988, he served each
tenant with a copy of the application and placed a copy including
all required supplements and supporting documentation with the
resident superintendent of the subject building.
Various tenants objected to the rent increase alleging, among
other things, that the pointing was not building-wide, that the
roof work was merely a repair to the existing roof and not a new
roof and that some individual apartments still had leaks.
On July 11, 1989, and July 18, 1989 the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR) conducted an on-site physical inspection
of the subject premises. The inspector, in his report, indicated
the roofing was new and the pointing was building-wide. Further
the inspector noted that one inspected apartment displayed
evidence of leak damage.
DL 930137 RT
In the order here under review, that Administrator determined
that the installation of a new roof and the removal and
replacement of the loose stucco (pointing) qualified as major
capital improvements at a cost of $24,000. The Administrator
found that the application complied with the relevant laws and
regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted by
the own r and allowed appropriate rent increases for rent-
controlled and rent-stabilized apartments.
It was further determined that $50,850 in claimed costs should be
disallowed because either the work done did not qualify as an MCI
or the work done lacked sufficient substantiating documentation.
In the petition for administrative review the tenants request
reversal of the Administrator's order. The tenants assert, among
other things, that the order under review stated that "most" of
the apartments evidence no leak damage, and the tenants question
the workmanship of the pointing. Finally, the tenants assert
that the rent increases were to high.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
First, the tenants contend that the workmanship of the approved
work was inadequate. This allegation is not supported by the
weight of the evidence in the record. The Administrator
correctly relied on the totality of the record and the
inspector's report. The Administrator's use of the word "most"
in the order was inartful. The inspector reported only one area
of one apartment as having had leak damage. The inspector
reported no instances of active leaks, and the one instance of
leak damage may have predated the approved work. Accordingly,
the Administrator was correct in relying upon the entire record
and granting the rent increase. Similarly, the Administrator was
correct in advising the tenants that their appropriate remedy
was filing a service complaint with DHCR, if warranted.
Second, the tenants contend that the rent increases were too
high. This allegation is without merit. The Administrator
calculated t e rent increases in accordance with well-
established, court-approved formulas. The tenants, in the
petition for administrative review, point to no specific errors
in the Administrator's computations.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations, the
Emergency Tenant Protection Act and the Tenant Protection
Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
DL 930137 RT