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  S.J.R. NO.: 6886
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: DK430046RO
                                              :  
               HARRY SILBER                      RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: BG4101240M
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

                  ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL

          The above-named petitioner-owner timely filed a petition for 
          administrative review against an order issued on September 28, 1989 
          by the Rent Administrator, (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 1601 and 1603 York Avenue, New York, New 
          York, various apartments.

          Subsequent thereto, the petitioner-owner filed a petition in the 
          Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and 
          Rules requesting that the Court direct the Division to 
          expeditiously determine the petitioner's administrative appeal.  

          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 administrative appeal.

          The owner commenced the proceeding below on July 23, 1987 by filing 
          an application to increase the rents for the stabilized and 
          controlled apartments based on the installation of "two new 
          lobbies".

          In response to the owner's application, several tenants alleged, in 
          substance, that the work was only cosmetic; the owner and not the 
          tenants should bear the cost of the work; the repairs were due to 
          inferior maintenance; and the doorbells no longer worked as a 
          result of the installation.

          On September 28, 1989 the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review, denying the owner's application and finding that the 
          installations did not qualify as a major capital improvement (MCI), 
          but were considered as repairs and maintenance.

          In his petition, the owner, through his attorney, contends, in 
          substance, that new front and vestibule doors are specifically 
          listed as a major capital improvement under Section 2522.4(a)(i)(2) 
          and (3) of the Rent Stabilization Code; that pursuant to Section 
          2522.4(a)(ii), the additional installation of flooring, buzzer 
          system, ceilings, and indoor and outdoor lighting fixtures is work 
          performed in conjunction with and integral to the installation of 
          the doors which also qualifies as an MCI.  







          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DK430046RO




          In response to the owner's petition, the tenants reiterate their 
          earlier claims made in opposition to the owner's MCI application, 
          including the loss of their individual doorbell service during the 
          installation of the intercom system, and add that the new doors are 
          difficult to open from the inside and are not secure.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be 
          remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing.

          The evidence of the record in the instant case indicates that the 
          owner described the improvements in his MCI application as "2 
          complete new lobbies" which included 4 new glass doors and 4 new 
          transom, new oak walls, new terra cotta floors, new lights and new 
          buzzer system.  Notwithstanding the use of the all encompassing 
          term "lobbies" to describe the subject installations, the 
          Commissioner finds that some of the underlying items which were 
          installed, such as building entrance and vestibule doors, may 
          qualify as an MCI warranting a rent increase.  Accordingly, the 
          Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator incorrectly denied 
          the owner's application without first examining each of the 
          underlying items which were encompassed in the new lobby 
          installations.

          Based on the foregoing, the Commissioner deems it appropriate to 
          remand this proceeding to the Administrator to determine what 
          items, if any, qualify as MCI's and the corresponding cost for each 
          item.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is granted to 
          the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator 
          for further processing in accordance with this order and opinion.  
          The Rent Administrator's order is hereby revoked.

          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