OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF
                  ANTHONY TUFFY 

                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO.:  CI630019OM 


          On February 17, 1989, the above named petitioner-owner timely filed 
          a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued 
          on February 1, 1989, by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 15-19 West Mosholu Parkway Bronx, New York,  
          wherein the Rent Administrator denied the owner's application for 
          a rent increase based on the installation of 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 this administrative appeal.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on September 2, 1988, by filing 
          an application for a rent increase based on the installation of new 
          prime windows at a total cost of $52,343.00.

          One tenant objected to the owner's application, alleging that 
          building services were not being maintained properly; and that the 
          increase for the windows should have already been included in the 
          rent as the installation was completed prior to occupancy.

          On February 1, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review denying the application based upon a finding that the 
          owner did not apply for an  increase within the two year time 
          period following completion of the installation (January 1986).

          In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that the DHCR 
          does not have the legal authority to restrict applications for rent 
          increases to the two year time period following completion of the 

          ADMIN.  REVIEW DOCKET NOS.  DB630085RO

          In response to the owner's petition, the same tenant iterates her 
          objections submitted in the proceeding below.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be 
          remanded to the Administrator for such further processing as is 
          deemed necessary in accordance with this order and opinion.

          The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the owner 
          applied for an MCI rent increase approximately 2 years and 8 months 
          following the completion of the installation.

          Section 2522.4 (a)(8) of the Rent Stabilization Code precludes a 
          rent increase for a major capital improvement when the application 
          is filed more than two years after the completion of the 
          installation.  The effective date of this restriction was extended 
          to August 1, 1987, pursuant to advisory opinions 87-1 and 87-3. 
          Thus, with respect to rent stabilized apartments, the owner's 
          application could not receive consideration.  However, said 
          limitation does not apply to rent controlled apartments.  
          Therefore, the Rent Administrator erred by denying the entire 
          application without computing a rent increase for rent controlled 
          The Commissioner notes that the owner has submitted the necessary 
          documentation to support his application for a rent increase  
          including information regarding the Article 8A loan from HPD used 
          to effectuate the MCI.   

          Accordingly, this proceeding is being remanded to the Administrator  
          for such further processing as is deemed necessary to consider the 
          application on its merits and calculate a rent increase for the 
          rent controlled apartments in the building.

          Any increase computed shall become effective on the date of 
          issuance of the Administrator's order appealed herein (February 1, 
          1989) with arrears collectible in 12 equal monthly installments 
          beginning the first rent payment date following the issuance of a 
          new order upon remand.

          With respect to the objections raised by the tenant, the 
          Commissioner notes that the tenant is not aggrieved by the 
          Administrator's order as rent stabilized apartments are exempted 
          from any increase resulting from the installation herein; and that 
          individual or building-wide apartment service complaints may be 
          filed with DHCR, if the facts so warrant, which may result in 
          reductions from the current rents.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

          ADMIN.  REVIEW DOCKET.: DB630085RO

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted to 
          the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Administrator for 
          such further processing as deemed necessary in accordance with this 
          order and opinion.  The order and determination of the Rent 
          Administrator remains in full force and effect until a new order is 
          issued on remand.

                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  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