STATE OF NEW YORK
                      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.:  EK110353RT
          APPEALS OF                                           EK110355RT
                 
                  OLIVER WOLF & 
                  JOANNE BREITMAN
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONERS        DOCKET NO.:  DB130031OM 
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named petitioner-tenants timely refiled petitions for 
          administrative review (PARs) against an order issued on August 30, 
          1990 by the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 123-60 80 Avenue, Kew Gardens, New York, 
          various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that 
          the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on a major capital 
          improvement.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by these administrative appeals.  Furthermore, the 
          Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these petitions 
          for disposition since they pertain to the same order and involve 
          common issues of law and fact.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on February 28, 1989 by 
          initially filing an application for a major capital improvement 
          rent increase predicated on the installation of new replacement 
          windows at a total claimed cost of $201,188.00.  In support of his 
          application, the owner submitted copies of the contract and 
          cancelled checks.

          Various tenants submitted responses objecting to the owner's 
          application but failed to make any complaints pertinent to the 
          installation.

          On August 30, 1990 the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review, finding that the installation of new replacement 
          windows qualified as a major capital improvement, determining that 
          the application complied with the relevant laws and regulations 
          based upon the supporting documentation submitted by the owner and 
          allowing rent increases for both rent controlled and rent 
          stabilized apartments based upon an approved cost of $201,188.00.















          ADMIN.  REVIEW DOCKET NO.:  EK110353RT; EK110355RT

          In his petition for administrative review, under docket number 
          EK110355RT, the tenant of apartment 4J contends, in substance, that 
          he signed a lease in April 1989; that said lease made no mention of  
          a pending major capital improvement application; and that he was 
          unaware of the possibility of an increase for new windows that were 
          already installed when he moved into the apartment in May 1989.

          In answer to the tenant's petition, the owner argues that the 
          tenant's complaints are unfounded and should, therefore, be 
          dismissed; that the statement made by said tenant is false; and 
          that the tenant's vacancy lease did contain specific reference to  
          the pending application under docket number DB130031OM.  A copy of 
          said lease was also submitted by the owner to justify its position. 
          No response was received with respect to the owner's answer, a copy 
          of which was served on the tenant.

          In the petition, under docket number EK110353RT, the tenant of 
          apartment 11R contends, in substance, that the rent increase and 
          retroactive amounts were calculated for her apartment based on a 
          four-room room count while her apartment only has two rooms; that 
          she was not given an option regarding the installation; that she 
          was not given adequate information by the owner with regard to the 
          requested increase; and that the installation of the windows would 
          not have been necessary if the old windows were properly 
          maintained.

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

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized 
          apartments.  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 Commissioner notes that the installation of new replacement 
          windows qualify as a major capital improvement for which an 
          increase may be warranted, providing the owner otherwise so 
          qualifies.  The record indicates that the owner correctly complied 
          with  the applicable procedures for a major capital improvement.

          With regard to the claim made by the tenant of Apt. 4J under docket 
          number EK110355RT to the effect that the first lease he signed made 

                                          2










          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EK110353RT; EK110355RT


          no mention of a pending major capital improvement application, the 
          Commissioner notes that Sections 2522.5(d) (2) and (4) of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code provide that when an application for a rent 
          increase for an MCI is pending before the agency, the vacancy lease 
          must provide that the rent may be increased pursuant to an order 
          issued by the Division including the basis for the requested 
          increase, and that if granted, the increase may be effective during 
          the lease term.  In the absence of the same then in accordance with 
          Section 2522.4 (a)(5) of the Code, no increase shall be collectible 
          until the expiration of the lease term in effect at the time the 
          order is issued.  The evidence of record in the instant case 
          confirms that the vacancy lease executed by the tenant of apartment 
          4J contained the required information concerning the pending 
          proceedings.

          With regard to the room count discrepancy raised by the tenant of 
          Apt. 11R, under docket number EK110353RT, the Commissioner notes 
          that a room for MCI purposes is defined as follows:
                
              1) A windowless kitchen containing at least 59 square feet:

              2) An enclosed area with window containing at least 60 square  
                 feet;
              3) An enclosed area without window containing at least 80      
                 square feet;
              4) Bathroom, walk-in-closet, etc. are excluded.

          In this connection, the Commissioner notes that any adverse 
          determination stemming from a miscount in rooms which arises after 
          the MCI order is issued becomes the responsibility of the owner.  
          The Commissioner further notes that the owner may not charge the 
          tenant based on a greater number of legal rooms for MCI purposes.  
          This order is issued without prejudice to the tenant filing a 
          complaint with this Division based on a rent overcharge, if the 
          facts so warrant. 
               
          Based upon the entire record the Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

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

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied 



                                         3


















          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: EK110353RT; EK110355RT



          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.





          ISSUED:

                                                                             

                                                       JOSEPH A.  D'AGOSTA
                                                       Deputy Commissioner









                                         [3]
















































                                                                             
            





























































































































    

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