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.:EA 110266-RT
                                          :  
                                             RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
         KATHLEEN O'CONNELL,                 DOCKET NO.:BG 130352-OM
                            PETITIONER    : 
      ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

      On January 29, 1990 the above-named petitioner-tenant timely refiled an 
      administrative appeal against an order issued on December 1, 1989 by the 
      District Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York) concerning the 
      housing accommodations known as 84-25 85th Road Woodhaven, New York, 
      Apartment 5A, wherein the Administrator granted major capital improvement 
      (MCI) rent increases for the controlled and stabilized apartments in the 
      subject premises based on the installation of apartment windows at the 
      premises.  Said order provided for the payment of temporary arrears by 
      stabilized tenants to cover the period between the December 1, 1987 
      effective date and the January 1, 1990 collectibility date set forth in the 
      Administrator's order.

      The landlord commenced the proceeding below by filing its MCI application 
      in July 1987.  The petitioner, however, did not respond to the application.

      The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, stated that two 
      tenants responded objecting to the rent increase without any complaints 
      pertinent to the installation.

      On appeal, the petitioner-tenant states, in substance, that she objects to 
      the retroactive increase; and that since rent control tenants are not 
      subject to paying retroactive rent increases from resolved MCI 
      applications, the petitioner is of the opinion that occupants of rent 
      stabilized units also should not be subject to this retroactivity.  The 
      tenant also states she did not consent to the window installation.

      In response to the tenant's petition, the owner filed an answer stating, in 
      substance, that there is no requirement for the owner to obtain the 
      tenants' written consent.

      After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
      Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal should be 
      denied.

      Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by Section 
      2522.4(2) of the current Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized 
      apartments.  Under rent stabilization, the improvement must generally be 










          DOCKET NUMBER: EA 110266-RT
      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.  
      Furthermore the Code specifically authorizes retroactive payments which 
      apply only to rent stabilized tenants and represent a temporary increase 
      until the full amount of such temporary arrears is paid.

      With reference to the DHCR fact sheet cited by the tenant on appeal, the 
      Commissioner notes that the consent of a tenant in occupancy is required in 
      order for the owner to be eligible for a rent increase based on the 
      installation of new individual apartment equipment or services pursuant to 
      Section 2522.4(a)(1) of the Code.  However, tenant consent to a major 
      capital improvement installation is not required nor is the owners failure 
      to obtain such consent sufficient to warrant revocation of the 
      Administrator's determination.

      On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the 
      Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

      THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent 
      Stabilization Law and Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations for the City 
      of New York, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

      ORDERED, that the administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is denied; 
      and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is affirmed.

      ISSUED:










                                                                    
                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       Acting 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