STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: EH210280RT
GERTRUDE C. LANE DOCKET NO.: BG230248OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 23, 1990, the above named petitioner-tenant timely filed
a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued
on August 2, 1990, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning
the housing accommodations known as 2424 Kings Highway, Brooklyn,
New York, Apartment 1-D, wherein the Rent Administrator determined
that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on the
installation of major capital improvements (MCI).
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues raised
by this administrative appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on July 15, 1987, by initially
filing an application for a rent increase based on the total
claimed cost of $81,793.02 for the following installations:
windows, lintels, doors, waterproofing and pointing, intercom and
On August 2, 1990 the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review granting in part the owner's application authorizing
an increase for windows, doors, intercom system and waterproofing
and pointing. Disallowed by the Administrator was the total
claimed cost of $20,000.00 for lintels ($11,00) not installed
building-wide and sidewalk ($9,000) determined as a repair.
In this petition, the tenant contends in substance, that she is a
senior citizen on Social Security with a small pension and a
pending SCRIE application; that based on an agreement (following
the death of her husband) with the former owner Capri Management
and David Malik Management she was "unilaterly and arbitrarily"
relocated from apartment 1-F, a six room apartment (converted to a
doctor's office) to apartment 1-D a three room apartment, in
exchange for assurances that the monthly rent ($252.23) would not
be raised; that the agreement has been disregarded and the same
ploy is being attempted by the current management and that based on
the agreement with the former owner rent increases in the
Administrator's order should be disallowed.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EH210280RT
The owner did not respond to the petition.
After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner
is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent
controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization
Code for rent stabilized apartments. Under rent control, an
increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970 a
major capital improvement required for the operation, preservation,
or maintenance of the structure. Under rent stabilization, the
improvement must generally be building-wide; depreciable under the
Internal Revenue Code; other than for ordinary repairs; required
for the operation, preservation, and maintenance of the structure;
and replace an item whose useful life has expired.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the
tenant did not file an objection in response to the owner's MCI
application while pending before the Administrator, although
afforded an opportunity. Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization
Code precludes a tenant from offering allegations for the first
time at the administrative level. Further, the allegation posed by
the tenant has no direct relationship to the quality of the MCI
installations and therefore, irrelevant in the instant challenge .
Any rent increase exemption arrangement the tenant may have entered
with the owner could possibly be addressed by filing with DHCR an
The Commissioner is not unmindful of the possibility that the rent
increases may prove burdensome to some tenants. However, the
Commissioner is constrained by the applicable statutory and
regulator provisions to grant such increases as are warranted.
A tenant who has a valid Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption
Order (SCRIE) may be exempted from that portion of the increase
which would cause the rent to exceed one-third of the tenant's
household monthly disposable income.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby
is, denied; and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the
same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA