EE 110343-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
          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
           
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     DC 130002-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            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
          improvements (MCI).

          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
          thereupon.


          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
          effectuated.

          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







          EE 110343-RT
          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-
          ments.  
                         
          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
          considered herein.

          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.








          EE 110343-RT
          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, 
          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


                                          
    

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