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.: EH130126RO
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.: BL130271OM
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,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and
that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby
LULA M. ANDERSON