DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: EH130125RO
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.: BH110211OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EH130125RO
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,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and
that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EH130125RO
LULA M. ANDERSON