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 
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: EH130352RT
                                              :  
              ELLA GALINSKY                      RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: CB130197OM
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

                   ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING IN PART PETITION FOR
                                ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On August 29, 1990, the above named petitioner-tenant timely filed 
          a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued 
          on August 2, 1990 by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning 
          the housing accommodations known as 141-25 Northern Boulevard, 
          Flushing, New York, Apartment F-25, wherein the Rent Administrator 
          determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on 
          the installation of major capital improvements (MCIs).

          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 February 22, 1988, by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          total installation cost of $460,417.00 for the following items: 
          adequate wiring, replacement windows, mail boxes, new intercom and 
          asbestos removal.

          Four tenants objected to the owner's application, alleging, in 
          substance, and without substantiation that the owner was limited to 
          a negotiated 2% increase, they were exempt from the increase as 
          senior citizens, and raising other non-substantive or unrelated 
          issues to the MCI installations.

          The order of the Rent Administrator issued on August 2, 1990 
          granted in part the owner's application and authorized an increase 
          for adequate wiring, replacement windows and a new intercom.  
          Disallowed by the Administrator was the claimed cost of $16,028.00 
          for mail boxes (installed in the same location) and asbestos 
          removal (which did not qualify as a MCI).

          In this petition the tenant contends, in substance, the following:

          1.  The vacant apartments which were offered for cooperative       
              purchase to outside buyers were upgraded more extensively than  
              the electrical work performed to other apartments which is the  
              subject of the instant MCI rent increase.  Only one electrical  









          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EH130352RT




              outlet capable of servicing an air conditioner was installed in  
              the apartment, and another one is needed in the bedroom for the  
              tenant's air conditioner. 

          2.  The replacement of the old windows should be considered        
              ordinary maintenance as they were the original windows and in  
              dire need of replacement.

          3.  The new intercom does not function as well as the old one,     
              often malfunctioning and creating an inconvenience when it 
              becomes necessary to personally let a visitor in.

          4.  The asbestos in the subject apartment and basement should be
              removed.

          5.  The room count stated on the owner's application (492) is lower
              than the room count stated on Schedule A (660) of the offering 
              plan and has resulted in a higher MCI rent increase.

          The owner in response to the tenant's petition states, in 
          substance, the following:

          1.  The petition should be dismissed as the tenant failed to raise  
              the issues when afforded the opportunity during the processing
              of the application.

          2.  The apartments were adequately rewired as specified by         
              contract, and the work performed passed inspection under the   
              J-51 program.

          3.  The replacement of old windows and an inadequate intercom      
              system is not a bar to a MCI rent increase.

          4.  The discrepancy in the room count arises from omitting half    
              rooms as well as employing a different measure 
              commonly used in cooperative conversions.

          After a careful consideration of the entire record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be granted 
          in part.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent 
          controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization 
          Code for rent stabilized apartments.  Under rent control, an 
          increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970 a 
          major capital improvement required for the operation, preservation, 
          or maintenance of the structure.  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.


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EH130352RT




          The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the 
          petitioner-tenant was served by the Administrator with notice of 
          the instant application, but failed to register any objections.  
          Moreover, fundamental principles of administrative appeal process 
          and the Rent Stabilization Code Section 2529.6 prohibit a party 
          from raising issues on appeal which were not raised below.

          The tenant clearly could have raised the very issues 
          (malfunctioning intercom, the room count and the asbestos removal) 
          before the Administrator which they now seek to raise for the first 
          time on appeal.

          The Commissioner however notes that the question of the room count 
          was fully investigated by the Administrator, and the computation 
          was adjusted in accordance with Division's "room" definition which 
          excludes half-rooms.

          Furthermore, the requirement for asbestos removal is beyond the 
          jurisdiction of the Division and does not impact on DHCR's 
          determination of the instant order.  The tenant is advised to seek 
          assistance with the appropriate governmental agencies-the New York 
          City Departments of Health and Environmental Protection.

          The type of electrical work recognized in the Administrator's order 
          meets the definitional requirements of an MCI, and the record 
          discloses that the owner substantiated its application with the 
          required documentation.  However, it does not appear from the 
          record that the tenants were afforded the option of having 
          additional air conditioning outlets installed.  The owner is not 
          required to install an outlet in every room for the work to qualify 
          for an MCI rent increase.  However, tenants must be given the 
          option of having additional air conditioner outlets installed at 
          cost.  Therefore, the Administrator's order should be modified to 
          add the attached document, entitled "Attachment To The MCI Order 
          For Rewiring."

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

          ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby 
          is, granted in part; and that the Rent Administrator's order be, 
          and the same hereby is, modified in accordance with this order and 
          opinion.

          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