OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: DL210128RT
      MR. & MRS. ROBERT FOX,                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             DOCKET NO.: BA230214OM
                              PETITIONERS : 


      The above named petitioner-tenants timely filed a petition for 
      Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on December 8, 1989 by 
      the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing accommodations 
      known as 2704 Ocean Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, apartment D4, wherein the 
      Administrator determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase 
      based on a major capital improvement (MCI).

      The owner commenced this proceeding on January 2, 1987 by initially filing 
      an application for an MCI rent increase predicated on the installations of 
      a new oil burner/boiler and cement work at a total claimed cost of 

      In response to the owner's MCI application, several tenants filed answers, 
      contending, in substance, that the boiler still does not work properly; and 
      that occasionally there is no hot water.

      Based on the tenants' allegations, a physical inspection was conducted on 
      November 16, 1989, wherein the inspector reported that there is an adequate 
      supply of heat and hot water in those apartments which were tested with the 
      exception of apartment E4 where the hot water temperature was found to be 
      105 degrees fahrenheit.

      Thereafter, the Rent Administrator issued the order appealed herein, 
      granting the owner's application and authorizing an increase based upon the 
      installation of the new burner/boiler at a total approved cost of 
      $43,400.00.  Disallowed by the Administrator were claimed costs totalling 
      $5,800.00 on grounds that the owner withdrew the improvement of cement 
      work.  Said order contains the notation that the tenant of apartment E4 is 
      excluded from the rent increase until the owner demonstrates that the hot 
      water condition has been rectified.

      On appeal, the petitioner-tenants request reversal of the Administrator's 
      order and contends, in substance, that it is ironic that an inspector found 
      that the hot water was inadequate in apartment E4 while the rest of the 
      line was adequate since the water has to flow from top to bottom; and that 
      the $43,400.00 cost for a boiler/burner is excessive for the size of the 
      subject building.


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DL210128RT


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

      With respect to the tenants' contention that the cost of the boiler/burner 
      ($43,400.00) is excessive, the record in the instant case, which includes 
      a copy of the proposal, invoice, contractor's certifications, cancelled 
      checks, governmental approvals and sign-offs for the heating system, 
      indicates to the extent recognized by the Administrator that the owner 
      correctly complied with the applicable procedures for a major capital 

      As to the tenants' other contention, the Commissioner notes that the 
      petitioners have not specifically stated that the heat or hot water is 
      inadequate in their apartment, D4.  In addition, there are no rent 
      reduction orders based on the owner's failure to maintain services of a 
      building-wide nature outstanding against the subject premises nor have any 
      heat/hot water complaints been filed by the tenants herein either prior to 
      or subsequent to the issuance of the order appealed herein.

      This determination is without prejudice to the rights of the tenants filing 
      an application with the Division for a rent reduction based upon a decrease 
      in service, if the facts so warrant.

      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.


                                           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