OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

      APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.:EF 110174-RT
               MILDRED HOUSTON,           :              EG 110016-RT
           DANIEL/JEAN JONES,                            EG 110024-RT            
           JUANITA JONES                                 EG 110327-RT
           LINDA JONES,     PETITIONERS   : 
      ------------------------------------X  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             DOCKET NO.:BH 130078-OM


      The above-named petitioners-tenants timely filed petitions for 
      Administrative Review against an order issued on June 18, 1990 by the Rent 
      Administrator, Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing 
      accommodations known as 631 Beach 9th Street, Far Rockaway, New York, 
      Various Apartments wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner 
      was entitled to a rent increase based on a major capital improvement (MCI).  
      The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these Administrative 
      Appeals for determination under this order and opinion as they involve 
      common issues of law and fact.

      The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing its MCI application in 
      August of 1987.  Although several tenants in the subject building filed 
      responses none of the four petitioning tenants herein filed any objections 
      to the owner's application.

      The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, granted a major capital 
      improvement (MCI) rent increase based on the installation of new prime 
      windows at a total approved cost of $70,470.00.

      In their petitions for Administrative Review, the tenants request a 
      reversal of the Administrator's order and contend, in substance, that they 
      did not request new windows and there are numerous other building 
      violations that have been ignored by the landlord since October 1979-Apt 
      1D; that the windows are coming apart and water leaks into the windows 
      whenever it rains.  Also that the elevators are constantly not working and 
      there are various other service complaints in the Apartment- Apt 5B; and 
      that the windows are defective and deficiencies in the apartment have not 
      been repaired-apt 6D; the tenant in apartment 4H did not raise any 
      objection in her petition.

      After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
      Commissioner is of the opinion that these Administrative Appeals should be 

      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; 


          DOCKET NUMBER: EF 110174, et al.
      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 Commissioner notes that none of the objections now being raised for the 
      first time on Administrative Appeal by the petitioners were raised while 
      the owner's application was pending before the Rent Administrator even 
      though all of the tenants were afforded the opportunity to do so.  
      Accordingly, the Commissioner finds pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent 
      Stabilization Code that these objections may not now be considered herein.

      The record in the instant case, which includes a copy of the proposal, 
      invoice, contractor's certification, and cancelled checks for the work in 
      question indicates that the owner correctly complied with the applicable 
      procedures for a major capital improvement; and that the Rent Administrator 
      correctly computed the appropriate rent increases based on the 
      substantiated cost of the improvement.  The tenants have not established 
      that the increase should be revoked.

      This determination is without prejudice to the rights of the tenants filing 
      appropriate complaints with the Division alleging that the owner is not 
      maintaining all required services, if the facts so warrant.

      THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 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.


                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       Acting 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