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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:EB 430114-RT
:
WALLACE BULLOCK RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
and VARIOUS TENANTS, DOCKET NO.:BF 430023-OM
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above named petitioners-tenants timely filed a petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on January 16, 1990 by the
Rent Administrator, Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York, concerning housing
accommodations known as 230 East 7th Street AKA 102 Avenue C, New York, New
York, Various Apartments.
The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, granted the owner's
application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase based on
the installation of a new roof at a total approved cost of $2,055.16 and
contains the notation that only one tenant (Apt 5C) complained about leaks
and that a subsequent inquiry sent to that tenant did not elicit any
response.
On appeal, the petitioners-tenants request a reversal of the
Administrator's order and contend, in substance, that contrary to the
statement in the order dated January 16, 1990, the tenant in Apt 5C never
received correspondence to confirm the owner's statement about the repair
of the leaks from the roof; that the tenant in Apartment 5D maintains that
the roof still leaks; that the tenant in Apt 3A has resided in the building
since August 1982 and never witnessed any repairs to the roof during 1987;
and that if work of any amount was done, it could not have been of
sufficient scope to only cost the owner $3,885.00.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by Section
2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized apartments.
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.
DOCKET NUMBER: EB 430114-RT
The petitioners' contention that the tenant in apartment 5C never received
correspondence to confirm the owner's statement about the repair of the
roof leaks is not supported by the record as evidenced by the fact that the
Division sent a properly addressed notice on December 4, 1989 to the tenant
in Apt 5C which was not returned by the U.S. Postal service. The
Commissioner notes that there is no mention now in the petition that the
roof still leaks.
In addition, a check of the Division's records further shows that in the
tenant of Apt 5D's response to the owner's application, that he confirmed
the roof was done and the leaking corrected.
The Commissioner further notes that the petitioners' other contentions are
not relevant to the installation and do not constitute grounds to bar an
owner from obtaining a rent increase for a major capital improvement that
is otherwise warranted.
The record further discloses that the owner substantiated its application
by submitting to the Administrator documentation in support of the
application, including a copy of the contract, invoice, contractor's
certification and cancelled checks for the work in question; and that the
Administrator properly determined the owner's application for a rent
increase for the installation of a new roof.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the Administrative Appeal be, and the same hereby is denied;
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
