Docket Nos.: EK 130314-RT, FA 130158-RT
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NOS.: EK  130314-RT
                                                              FA 130158-RT
            MAX GOTTFRIED, JOSE PINNA,           DRO DOCKET NO.: CA 130086-OM
                                                 Premises: 82-60 116th Street
                                PETITIONERS        Kew Gardens, N.Y. 


          The  above-captioned   petitioner-tenants   filed   petitions   for
          Administrative  Review  (PARs)  on  a  timely  basis  against   the
          Administrator's order issued  on  October  26,  1990,  wherein  the
          Administrator  authorized  Major  Capital  Improvement  (MCI)  rent
          increases based on the installation of a new hot water boiler,  and
          for the pointing and water proofing of the exterior  walls  of  the
          subject premises.  In PAR Docket Numb r  EK-130314-RT,  petitioner-
          tenant  argued  that  as  the  improvement  corrected  a   specific
          violation, the  owner  was  thus  not  eligible  for  an  MCI  rent
          increase.  The petitioner also complained that the  new  boiler  is
          defective; petitioner also complained of defects in the application 
          of the new waterproofing that resulted in leaks.

          On May 17, 1991 the Commissioner under Docket Number EK-130314-RT
          issued an order and opinion that denied  the  petitioner's  appeal.
          The Commissioner rejected the  petitioner's  allegation  concerning
          the owner's eligibility for an MCI rent increase.  The Commissioner 
          additionally found  that  the  petitioner  had  not  complained  of
          defects in the new boiler nor of defects in the  new  waterproofing
          before the Administrator, and that the petitioner was  thus  barred
          from making such arguments for the first time on appeal.

          By  letter  dated  July   9,   1991,   the   petitioner   requested
          reconsideration of the Commissioner's order  on  the  grounds  that
          petitioner had made complaints of defects in the new boiler  before
          the Administrator.

          On August 2, 1991 the Commissioner issued an  order  reopening  the
          above-captioned proceedings and granting the  petitioner's  request
          for reconsideration finding that the petitioner had  complained  of
          defects in the new boiler below and at PAR.

          Thereupon open and  pending  PAR  Docket  number  FA-130158-RT  was
          merged with the instant proceedings, as both PARs presented similar 
          issues of law and fact.
          After careful consideration, the Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion
          that the above-captioned PARs be denied.

          An examination of the record reveals that in PAR docket number 
          EK-130314-RT, tenant made  complaints  about  lack  of  hot  water,

          Docket Nos.: EK 130314-RT, FA 130158-RT

          allegedly caused by defects  in  the  new  boiler,  and  complaints
          about leaks allegedly caused by defects in the application  of  the
          new waterproofing.  The record further reveals that tenant did  not
          make such allegations  below.   (The  Commissioner  finds  that  no
          tenant who answered  the  owner's  MCI  application  below  alleged
          defects in the  new  boiler  or  the  new  waterproofing  but  only
          alleged lack of heat and hot water caused by  defects  in  the  old
          boiler, or leaks caused by defects in the old waterproofing.)

          DHCR regulations prevent petitioner(s) from raising at  PAR  issues
          that were not raised below.

          As for tenant's allegations that owners were not entitled to an MCI 
          rent increase; the Commissioner notes that Section  2522.4  of  the
          Rent  Stabilization  Code  provides  for  rent  increases  for  the
          installation of major capital improvement if, among  other  things,
          they are required for the operation, preservation  and  maintenance
          of services.  Section 2202.4 of the  Rent  &  Eviction  Regulations
          contains similar provisions.

          A new boiler, and new  external  pointing  and  waterproofing  have
          previously been held to meet the criteria promulgated  pursuant  to
          the regulations to qualify as major capital improvements.

          A review of the record indicates that  the  Administrator  properly
          determined the owner's application for rent increases based on  the
          building-wide installations and correctly determined the amount  of
          the rent increases the owner was entitled to.

          The Commissioner notes, however, th t  in  PAR  docket  number  EK-
          130314-RT,  the  tenants  complaint  below  was  limited   to   the
          allegation of banging noises  in  the  pipes  allegedly  caused  by
          defects in the new boiler.  The Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          the fact that this issue was raised by only one tenant in  a  large
          multiple dwelling is insufficient reason to  warrant  reopening  or
          reconsideration of the proceeding.

          The Commissioner notes  that,  in  addition  to  raising  basically
          identical issues of law and  fact  with  EK-130314-RT,  PAR  docket
          number  FA-130158-RT  additionally  raises  issues  of  defects  in
          various services not covered by  the  Administrator's  order.   The
          owner is thus cautioned to correct the  problems  asserted  by  the
          petitioners herein, if it has not already done so.   If  the  owner
          fails  to  make  repairs,  if  necessary,  tenant-petitioners   are
          advised  to  file  appropriate  individual   and/or   building-wide
          complaints of reductions in service in the prescribed  manner,  and
          to refer to this order. 


          Docket Nos.: EK 130314-RT, FA 130158-RT

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and  Code,
          it is

          ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative review be, and the 
          same  hereby  are,  denied,  and,  that  the  order  of  the   Rent
          Administrator be and the same hereby is, affirmed.


                                          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