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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.:
EE 110343-RT; EH 110494-RT;
EH 110498-RT; EH 110496-RT;
VARIOUS TENANTS OF EH 110497-RT; EH 110499-RT;
35-25 34TH STREET, EH 110500-RT; EH 110501-RT
PETITIONERS DC 130002-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve
common questions of law and fact.
Various tenants of the above-named building filed and refiled, in
timely manner, petitions for administrative review of an order
issued on April 16, 1990, by a Rent Administrator concerning the
housing accommodation known as 35-25 34th Street, Astoria,
New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the
owner was entitled to a rent increase based on major capital
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 for review.
The owner commenced this proceeding on March 8, 1989 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on maj r capital improve-
ments, to wit - front vestibule doors, windows, intercom system,
and plumbing at a total cost of $200,207.00.
On May 1, 1989, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) served each tenant with a copy of the application and
afforded the tenants the opportunity to review it and comment
Thirteen tenants filed objections to the owner's application
alleging defects in the newly-installed front door and various
service deficiencies in the building. The owner submitted,
thereafter, a statement alleging that all repairs had been
On February 20 and March 30, 1990 physical inspections of the
subject building were carried out by the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR). The inspector, in his reports, noted
that repairs had been effectuated and that the new front door had
been installed in a workmanlike manner.
On April 16, 1990, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that the installations qualified as major
capital improvements, determining that the application complied
with the relevant laws and regulations based upon the supporting
documentation submitted by the owner, and allowing appropriate
rent increases for rent controlled and rent stabilized apart-
In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request
reversal or modification of the Rent Administrator's order and
allege that they did not request the improvements and should not
have to pay for them, that the new installations are defective or
of poor quality, and that the installations constitute
maintenance rather than major capital improvements.
In answer to the tenants' petitions the owner alleges in sub-
stance that the tenants' allegations are without merit.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the tenants f apartments C-23, C-
43, C-4, C-22, A-3, C-42 and C-3 did not file any objections to
the owner's application while this proceeding was pending before
the Rent Administrator although they were afforded the
opportunity to do so. Accordingly, the objections they raise
now, for the first time on administrative appeal, may not be
The Commissioner further notes that tenants who raised objections
to the installations or service deficiencies had these problems
investigated by the administrator, corrected by the owner, and
correction confirmed by the DHCR inspector prior to the issuance
of the order under review. Tenant permission is not necessary
for the carrying out of major capital improvements.
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 t e Rent Stabiliza-
tion Law 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 record in the instant case indicates that the owner correctly
complied with the application procedures for a major capital
improvement and the Rent Administrator properly computed the
appropriate rent increases. The tenants have not established that
the increase should be revoked.
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the ten-
ants' right to file complaints based on a diminution of 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,
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby