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 NO.: EH 110506-RT;
EH 110514-RT; EH 130507-RT;
EH 120515-RT; EI 110246-RT
VARIOUS TENANTS OF
88-22 PARSONS BOULEVARD,
PETITIONERS BE 110052-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 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
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.
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-
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,
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby