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.: DG210134RT
          APPEAL OF

          Salvatore Panno
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: AI230217OM
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above named petitioner-tenant timely refiled a petition for 
          Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on December 30, 
          1988 by the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 10 Avenue P, Brooklyn, New York, apartment 
          3L, wherein the Administrator determined that the owner was 
          entitled to a rent increase based on various major capital 
          improvements (MCIs).

          The owner commenced the proceeding by filing its MCI application in 
          September of 1986. Several tenants in the subject premises filed 
          responses to the owner's application. The petitioner-tenant, 
          however, did not file a response to the application although 
          afforded the opportunity to do so.

          The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, granted a major 
          capital improvement rent increase predicated on the installations 
          of pointing/waterproofing, a new roof, new windows, building 
          entrance and vestibule doors, and a compactor at a total approved 
          cost of $156,266.00.

          In this  Administrative Appeal, the petitioner-tenant contends, in 
          substance, that the improvements were done to encourage the sale of 
          Co-ops; that the windows still do not function properly; and that 
          the improvements were not done by the present owner but by the 
          previous owner.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this Administrative Appeal 
          should be denied.
















          Admin Rev. Docket No. DG210134RT

          Rent increases for major capital improvements 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. The installations involved herein, 
          to replace old items the useful lives of which have expired, meet 
          the definitional requirements of major capital improvements.

          The Commissioner notes that the petitioner-tenant herein raised no 
          objections to the quality or adequacy of the window installation 
          while this proceeding was before the Administrator although 
          afforded the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 
          2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code, the tenant's allegations may 
          not be considered now when offered for the first time on 
          Administrative Appeal. However, the owner is hereby directed to 
          correct any defective condition with the windows in apartment 3L 
          brought to its attention in writing, if it has not already done so 
          and the determination herein is without prejudice to the right of 
          the tenant filing as appropriate application with the Division for 
          a rent reduction based upon a decrease in services, if the facts so 
          warrant.

          With respect to the tenant's contention that the improvements were 
          done by the previous owner of the subject premises, the 
          Commissioner further notes that the fact that a current owner is 
          applying for a rent increase for improvements done by a prior owner 
          does not constitute grounds to bar such owner from obtaining a rent 
          increase provided it is otherwise warranted and the prior owner did 
          not already receive a rent increase.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is 

          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
                                                  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