OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF
                IMRAN HAMEED,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO.:    BH110211OM 


          On August 10, 1990, the above-named petitioner and then-owner filed 
          a petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          July 20, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 41-50 78th Street, Flushing, NY, various 
          apartments, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's 
          application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase 
          based on the installation of new windows.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          The former owner commenced the instant proceeding by initially 
          filing an application for a rent increase based on the building- 
          wide installation of windows at a total cost of $141,328.00.

          On July 20, 1990 the Rent Administrator issued the order here under 
          review, finding that building-wide rent reduction orders under 
          Docket Nos. AA100008B and AL130032B, issued on February 2, 1987 and 
          October 23, 1987 respectively, are still in effect.

          In this PAR, the petitioner requests reversal of the Rent 
          Administrator's order and contends, in substance, that he did not 
          receive one of the rent reduction orders and assumed that since 
          services were restored immediately, no order was ever issued. The 
          owner admits to receiving the other rent restoration order and 
          alleges he filed for rent restoration after restoring service and 
          all tenants resumed paying full rents after receiving a letter from 
          the tenants' association president.  The owner also contends that 
          notwithstanding the issuance of the two rent reduction orders, the 
          MCI application should be granted because the reductions of service 
          that led to the two rent reduction orders involved roof doors and 
          public hallway painting, not window installation, the basis for the 
          MCI application.  The petitioner argues that Division policy should 


          be changed to reflect a previous Commissioner's recommendation that 
          if a rent reduction order is issued for items unrelated to the MCI, 
          the MCI rent increase application should not suffer.

          In response to the petition, several tenants filed answers, 
          contending, in substance, that the windows are not in good working 
          order, the window locks do not work, the work is not complete as 
          one tenant is still awaiting the installation of a new window, the 
          windows carry only a ten year warranty, the window handles break 
          off frequently, the windows do not stay on track, they are 
          difficult to open and close, the building in general is poorly 
          maintained and one of the elevators was out of service for nineteen 

          The petitioner responded by submitting documentation showing that 
          repair work was satisfactorily performed for all tenants who 
          submitted answers to the Division.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

          A review of Division records discloses that, contrary to the 
          petitioner's statement, no application for rent restoration was 
          filed with DHCR.  

          It is the established position of the DHCR, as codified under 
          Section 2523.4(a) and 2522.4(a)(13) of the Rent Stabilization  Code 
          and further reflected in Policy Statement 90-8, that where there is 
          an order in effect determining a failure to maintain a building- 
          wide service which resulted in a rent reduction, such order will 
          constitute a bar to obtaining an MCI rent increase.  A subsequent 
          restoration of rent based on a finding of service restoration will 
          result in the prospective elimination of this sanction.  The 
          Commissioner notes that no rent restoration application has been 
          filed by the former or present owner in regard to any of the 
          outstanding rent reduction orders.

          This bar applies despite any acknowledgements by the tenants that 
          services have been restored.  The Commissioner also notes that the 
          petition refers to policy recommendations (inconsistent with 
          provisions of the law) of a past Commissioner that were never 
          implemented by the DHCR.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and 
          that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby 

          is, affirmed.


                                                  LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                                  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