DL 930137 RT
                                                         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 930137 RT

                    VARIOUS TENANTS
                OF THE PREMISES KNOWN AS          DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
               253 SOUTH LEXINGTON AVENUE         DOCKET NO. WCF 830009 OM
                WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK,                                    

                                PETITIONERS
          ----------------------------------X                                   

                    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
          of $74,850.00.

          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,
          affirmed.



          ISSUED:
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  ELLIOT SANDER
                                                  Deputy Commissioner






          DL 930137 RT
           
             
                                          
    

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