STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X S.J.R. NO.: 6635
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: EF530015RT
CARMEN G. PEREZ AND RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
VARIOUS TENANTS DOCKET NO.: CH530099OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
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
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