STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: DL210128RT
MR. & MRS. ROBERT FOX, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BA230214OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
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