EA 210080 RT
                                  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   210080   RT
                                                     
            WALTER HECHT,                        DRO DOCKET NO.: BD 230349 OM 
                                                  
                                                 Premises: 8201 Bay Parkway
                                 PETITIONER       Apt. 6H, Brooklyn, N.Y.
          -----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named tenant timely filed a petition for  administrative
          review of an order issued concerning  the  housing  accommodations
          relating to the above described docket number.        

          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 petition.

          The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing an  application
          for a rent increase based on various major  capital  improvements,
          to wit-boiler/burner, intercom system, pointing/waterproofing.
           
          Each tenant was served with a copy of the owner's application  and
          was afforded an opportunity to review it  and  comment  thereupon.
                                                                            
          The petitioner-tenant filed an objection to  the  owner's  applica
          tion contending that the owner filed an application  for  pointing
          and waterproofing under docket no. BD 210477-OM, and does not want 
          to pay twice.

          Thereafter, the Rent Administrator issued  the  order  here  under
          review finding that the installation qualified as a major  capital
          improvement, determining that the application  complied  with  the
          relevant laws and regulations based upon the supporting  documenta
          tion submitted by the owner,  and  allowing  appropriate  rent  in
          creases.  The improvement of pointing and  waterproofing  are  not
          considered  under  docket  no.  BD  230349-OM,  however,  it   was
          processed under docket no. BD 210477-OM.

          In its petition for administrative  review,  the  tenant  requests
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and  alleges  that  the
          hot water is sporadic and occasionally there is a lack of heat.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied.






          EA 210080 RT

          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,  preserva
          tion, 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.   

          The Commissioner will not entertain  the  tenant's  assertions  of
          decreased services raised for  the  first  time  on  appeal,  even
          though it was afforded an opportunity to file any objection before 
          the Administrator.   The  tenant  has  not  established  that  the
          increase should be revoked.

          This order is issued without prejudice to  the  tenants  right  to
          file an application for a rent reduction based upon a decrease  in
          services, should the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, 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.

          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