DHCR Decisions
Docket No.: EB 110104-RT, et al.
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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.:
EB 110104-RT; EB 110110-RT
EB 110112-RT; EC 110303-RT
VARIOUS TENANTS, EC 110309-RT; EC 110311-RT
EC 110337-RT; EE 120269-RT
DRO DOCKET NO.: BG 110338-OM
PETITIONERS Premises: 122-20 Ocean Promenade
----------------------------------X Various Apts., Belle Harbor, N.Y.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenants timely filed or refiled Petitions for
Administrative Review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above described docket numbers. The
petitions have been consolidated for disposition as they involve
similar issues of law and fact.
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 a major capital improvemen , to wit-
new windows.
The owner certified that it served each tenant with a copy of the
application and placed a copy of the entire application including
all required supplements and supporting documentation in the office
of the superintendent for the subject building.
The petitioner-tenants did not file an objection to the owner's
application although afforded the opportunity to do so.
Subsequently, the Division served various tenants with a copy of
the owner's application and were afforded an opportunity to review
it and comment thereupon. The record contains one response
confirming that the installation was completed as stated, and one
envelope, properly addressed was returned, it was marked return to
sender, undeliverable - no forwarding address.
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.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenants contends, in substance, that they
Docket No.: EB 110104-RT, et al.
never received notice from the owner or DHCR regarding the owner's
MCI application, that the windows were a replacement and not an
improvement, that replacement was necessary due to their condition
and age, that the cost of the windows are exorbitant, that the
windows are defective, and that the one response below confirming
the installation is spurious.
The owner interposed answers to the tenants' petitions contending,
that all notices were sent by the owner and/or by DHCR pursuant to
the Division's rules and regulations giving tenants an opportunity
to respond, however only one response was received confirming the
installation, that the replacement of windows does constitute an
improvement under the rules and regulations of DHCR, that the
apartment with defective windows was inspected and found them not
to be defective and that the price paid per window is exceptionally
low. The owner alleges that several of the petitions were late
filings. The record shows that all the petitions were timely filed
and several were timely refiled.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that
these petitions should be denied.
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.
The Commissioner notes that the record indicates that the Division
served various tenants with copies of the owner's MCI application
and affording them the opportunity to review it and comment
thereupon. In fact, one tenant responded, confirming that the
installation was completed as stated. The record contains the
owner's certificate of service of notice to tenants of application
for a rent increase based on an MCI. Furthermore, the installa
tions of new windows building-wide does constitute an improvement.
The owner substantiated such installation by submitting to the
Administrator in the proceeding below documentation in support of
its application, including copies of the contract, contractor's
Docket No.: EB 110104-RT, et al.
certification, and cancelled checks for the work herein. The
Administrator examined the documents, correctly complied with
applicable procedures for a MCI and properly computed the ap
propriate rent increases.
The tenants' contention that the response below by only one tenant
confirming the installation as spurious, is not supported and the
record indicates otherwise.
Finally, the Commissioner notes that the Administrator's record
indicates that there was no evidence of harassment or building-wide
service complaints at the time the application was approved for
issuance.
On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the
Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.
This order is issued without prejudice to the tenants' filing
complaints with this Division of decrease in services, if the facts
so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|