EH 110506-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 NO.:    EH 110506-RT;
                                                   EH 110514-RT;  EH 130507-RT;
                                                  EH 120515-RT;  EI 110246-RT
                    VARIOUS                     TENANTS                      OF
                 88-22 PARSONS BOULEVARD,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     BE 110052-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 in the above-named building, refiled timely peti 
          tions for administrative review of an order issued  on  June  18,
          1990, by a Rent Administrator concerning the  building  known  as
          88-22 Parsons Boulevard, Jamaica, 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 May 6, 1987 by  filing  an
          application for a rent increase based on major  capital  improve-
          ments, to wit - a boiler/burner, new roof, pointing, windows  and
          screens, and entrance doors at a total cost of $70,616.68.

          On July 11, 1988, 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.

          Various tenants responded and alleged defects in the various  in-
          stallations.  Copies of these responses were mailed to the  owner
          on May 25, 1989 along with a written request  for  his  comments.
          Owner's response was mailed to the complaining tenants  resulting
          in two (2) further complaints.  An inspection, completed on April 
          20, 1990 revealed that the tenants' complaints were not valid.







          EH 110506-RT

          On June 18, 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.  
                         
          No rent increases were permitted based upon the installation of a 
          new roof or entrance doors.  Increases  based  on  pointing  were
          disallowed.  Of the $70,616.68 claimed  by  the  owner  the  Rent
          Administrator approved increases based only on $48,302.00.

          In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request 
          reversal  of  the  Rent  Administrator's  order  and  allege   in
          substance that the installations  constitute  maintenance  rather
          than major capital improvements  and  that  service  deficiencies
          exist in the building.

          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 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 prejudi e  to  the  ten-
          ants' rights to file complaints based on a diminution of services 
          if the facts so warrant.

          The tenant of Apartment 2 is advised that paragraph four  of  his
          lease governs the collectability of an MCI  increase  granted  by
          order of the DHCR.


          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 







          EH 110506-RT
          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