DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NO.:    EH130126RO
          APPEAL OF

                ESTHER CAPISTRANO,      
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO.:    BL130271OM 
          ------------------------------------X

            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 13, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 47-31 37th Street, Sunnyside, NY, various 
          apartments, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's 
          application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase 
          which was based on the installation of new windows because of an 
          outstanding rent reduction order.

          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 $14,880.00.

          On July 13, 1990 the Rent Administrator issued the order here under 
          review, finding that a building-wide rent reduction order under 
          Docket No. QS000421B, issued on January 7, 1986 is still in effect.

          In this PAR, the petitioner requests reversal of the Rent 
          Administrator's order and contends, in substance, that she is 
          unaware of any rent reduction order. The owner also contends that 
          notwithstanding the issuance of a rent reduction order, the MCI 
          application should be granted because the reductions of service 
          that led to the rent reduction order involved extermination signs, 
          door bells, bulkhead and ceiling walls, hot water and exterior 
          window 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 conditions which led to the 












          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EH130126RO

          issuance of the rent reduction order have still not been corrected, 
          all required services are still not being maintained, the intercom 
          system is broken and the extermination services are erratic.

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

          It is the established position of the DHCR, as codified in Sections 
          2523.4(a) and 2522.4(a)(13) of the Rent Stabilization Code and as 
          further amplified 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 the outstanding 
          rent reduction order.

          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.

          ISSUED:



                                                                       
                                                 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