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

      ------------------------------------X  S.J.R. NO.: 6635
      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: EF530015RT
        VARIOUS TENANTS                      DOCKET NO.: CH530099OM
                            PETITIONER    :              


      This order and opinion is issued pursuing to an order of the Supreme Court 
      directing a determination therein.

      The petitioner-tenants timely filed an administrative appeal against an 
      order issued on May 30, 1990 by the Rent Administrator (92-31) Union Hall 
      Street, Jamaica, New York) concerning the housing accommodations known as 
      29-45 Sickles Street, New York, New York, various apartments, wherein the 
      Administrator granted major capital improvement (MCI) rent increases for 
      the controlled and stabilized apartments in the subject premises based on 
      the installation of a new boiler and apartment/basement windows.  The Rent 
      Administrator disallowed the claimed cost for capping of hallway windows, 
      child guard, fuel computer, roof insulation, roof, vents, pointing and 
      water pumps.

      The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing its MCI application in 
      August of 1988.  The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, noted 
      that various tenants responded to the application complaining of defective 
      windows, roof leaks and inadequate hot water.  An inspection was performed 
      by the Division with following findings: 1) hot water was provided to the 
      apartments; 2) there is evidence of leaks on the ceiling and walls of some 
      upper floor apartments and 3) that problems exist with the windows of the 
      following apartments:  FF, 2B, 2D, 2F, 2T, 4A, 4M, 5A, 5C and 5N.

      The Rent Administrator determined that the roof work did not constitute a 
      major capital improvement; that the pointing work was inadequate.  
      Therefore, the claimed cost for the roof resurfacing and pointing repairs 
      was disallowed.

      Apartments FF, 2B, 2D, 2F, 2T, 4A, 4M, 5A, 5C and 5N were exempted from the 
      window portion of the MCI rent increase.

      On appeal, the petitioner-tenants state, in substance, that A) the heat and 
      hot water services are unpredictable and erratic, B) apartments are drafty 
      due to poor window installation.

      After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
      Commissioner is of the opinion that this administrative appeal should be 


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EF530015RT

      The record discloses that to the extent recognized by the Administrator the 
      owner substantiated its application by the submission of various 
      documentation including copies of the contracts, contractor certifications, 
      cancelled checks and government approvals and sign-offs for the 
      installation and operation of the new heating system.

      The Administrator's order was issued of a detailed physical inspection was 
      conducted of the subject premises, the report of which disclosed, among 
      other things, that adequate hot water service was being provided (there was 
      no compliant of inadequate heat).  Said report of inspection further 
      disclosed as to those tenants who objected to the quality of the window 
      installation the proceeding below, that the windows were properly 
      installed, including the windows in the apartment occupied by the named 
      petitioner herein, with the exception of those apartments specified in the 
      Administrator's order, which apartments were exempted from the rent 

      Furthermore, a review of Division records discloses that there were no rent 
      reductions orders outstanding against the subject premises based on the 
      owner's failure to maintain services of building-wide nature nor were there 
      any heat or hot water complaints pending against the subject premises at 
      the time the Administrator's order was issued.  A subsequently filed 
      complaint was found to be without merit.

      Based upon the entire evidence of record, the Commissioner is of the 
      opinion and finds that the Administrator did not abuse his discretion in 
      issuing the order appealed herein.

      The Commissioner notes that under Docket No. FE 530026-RK the 
      Administrator, acting upon the owner's request for reconsideration, 
      affirmed the order appealed herein with slight modification with regard to 
      those apartments which had been exempted from the window portion of the 
      rent increase.  An owner's petition for administrative review is currently 
      pending against said order.  Due to time constrains said petition will be 
      decided separately under Docket No. HA 530009-RO.

      THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent 
      Stabilization Law and Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations for the City 
      of New York, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

      ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is denied; 
      and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is affirmed 
      subject to such determination as may be rendered under Docket No. HA 
      530009-RO currently pending before the Division.

                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                           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