OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                           

                   PAULINE GRAY
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO.: BK630215OM 


          On November 29, 1990, the above-named petitioner-tenant timely 
          refiled a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order 
          issued on October 2, 1990 by the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 3318 Perry Avenue, 
          Apartment 1F, Bronx, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator 
          determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on 
          various major capital improvements.

          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 this Administrative Appeal.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on November 30, 1987 by 
          initially filing an application for a major capital improvement 
          rent increase predicated on the installation of the following 

                     ITEMS                        CLAIMED COST

          1. Oil Burner/ Boiler                   $30,000.00 
          2. Replacement Windows                  $36,830.00
          3. Vestibule Doors                      $ 2,600.00
          4. Intercom                             $ 2,088.00
             TOTAL CLAIMED COST                   $71,518.00
          In support of his application, the owner submitted copies of the 
          contracts, approvals and cancelled checks.

          In answer to the owner's application, several tenants responded 
          objecting to the increase alleging, in substance, that the 

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EK610363RT

          replacement windows and the intercom system were defective; and 
          that the boiler/burner malfunctioned consistently.  Copies of these 
          allegations were mailed to the owner and by a letter dated June 14, 
          1990, the owner advised the Division that the necessary repairs had 
          been effectuated.  Physical inspections conducted on July 11, 1990 
          and July 12, 1990 revealed that the heat and hot water were 
          adequate; and that there were no defects in the windows, the 
          intercom system nor the vestibule doors.

          On October 2, 1990, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installations of the boiler/burner, 
          replacement windows, vestibule doors and intercom system qualified 
          as major capital improvements, determining that the application, as 
          it relates to such items, 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 

          In her petition for administrative review, the tenant contends, in 
          substance, that the subject major capital improvements to the 
          building were completed before she moved into her apartment on July 
          1, 1988; that she was never informed of a pending major capital 
          improvement application; and that her lease made no mention of any 
          such application or possible rent increase.  A copy of the tenant's 
          lease was also submitted in order to substantiate her claim.

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

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code. Under rent 
          stabilization, the improvement must generally be building-wide; 
          depreciable under the Internal Revenue Code, other than for 
          ordinary repairs; be required for the operation, preservation, and 
          maintenance of the structure; and replace an item whose useful life 
          has expired.

          The Commissioner notes that the replacement of a boiler/ burner, 
          apartment windows, vestibule doors and an intercom system qualify 
          as major capital improvements for which an increase may be 
          warranted, providing the owner otherwise so qualifies.  The record 
          indicates that the owner substantiated his application by 
          submitting copies of the contracts, approvals, and cancelled 


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EK610363RT

          checks.  The record confirms that the owner correctly complied with 
          the applicable procedures for a major capital improvement rent 
          increase.  The Commissioner further notes that on appeal, the 
          tenant does not allege any errors on which the Rent Administrator's 
          order was based, but rather asserts that the collectibility of the 
          increase as to the subject apartment is affected by the specific 
          terms or omissions in her vacancy lease.

          The Commissioner notes that where the tenant took occupancy of the 
          apartment pursuant to a vacancy lease commencing after the owner 
          had filed its application, as is the case in the instant 
          proceeding, for the major capital improvement rent increase, 
          granted by the Administrator's order to be collectible during the 
          term of the tenant's vacancy lease, such vacancy lease would have 
          to contain a specific clause advising the tenant of the pending 
          proceeding and advising that the rent charged was subject to an 
          additional increase (during the current lease term in effect) as 
          provided by Section 2522.5 (d) (2) of the Rent Stabilization Code 
          and established Division precedent.  In the absence of same, and in 
          accordance with Section 2522.4 (a) (5), said increase is not 
          collectible until the expiration of the lease term in effect at the 
          time of issuance of the MCI order, providing that the renewal lease 
          contains a general authorization provision for adjustment of the 
          rent reserved by the DHCR order.

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the tenant's 
          right to file a rent overcharge complaint with the Division if the 
          owner has collected any rent in excess of the lawful regulated 

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


                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  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