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 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: DB110100RT
APPEAL OF
Joseph J. Amon
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.: AE110163OM
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The petitioner-tenant timely filed an administrative appeal against
an order issued on January 12, 1989, by the Rent Administrator
(92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York) concerning the housing
accommodations known as 120-16 18th Avenue, College Point, New
York, apartment 3R, wherein the Administrator granted major capital
improvement (MCI) rent increases for the stabilized apartments in
the subject premises based on the installation of a boiler/burner.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant states, in substance, that the
boiler was replaced before he moved into the building; and his rent
is excessive.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this administrative appeal
should be denied.
Rent increases for MCIs are authorized by Section 2522.4 of the
Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized apartments. 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. It is the established position of the Division that
the installation of a boiler and burner, as in the instant case,
qualifies as an MCI.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DB110100RT
Regarding the tenant's contention that he took occupancy after the
installation was completed, the Commissioner notes that such
contention is not sufficient to obviate the tenant's obligation to
pay rent increases duly approved by the Division. For the MCI rent
increase to be collectable during the term of a lease in effect at
the time of the issuance of the order, such lease must contain a
provision authorizing the collection of the increase pursuant to a
DHCR order, and if such lease is a vacancy lease, the lease must
contain a specific clause informing the tenant that: 1) such an
application is pending; 2) the docket number of such application;
3) the increase requested; and 4) a description of the
installation. In the absence of such specific provisions in a
vacancy lease the rent increase would not be collectible until the
expiration of the lease term in effect at the time the
Administrator's order is issued and then only on a prospective
basis. The owner's violation of this provision could result in a
rent overcharge determination.
With regard to the tenant's claim that his rent is excessive,
according to Division records, the tenant filed an overcharge
complaint on July 17, 1989 under Docket Number DG110133R which was
granted on March 20, 1992, and that the tenant vacated said
apartment.
On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the
Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby
is, denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
-------------------------------
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
