FB 120255-RT,  FC 110194-RT
                                  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
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NOS.:   
                                                  FB 120255-RT;              
                 GAIL     FITZGERALD     and                   FC      110194-RT
                 CATHERINE WHAN,                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     CF-130192-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW  


          The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve 
          common questions of law and fact.

          The above-named tenants, filed timely petitions  for  administra-
          tive review of an order issued on February 5,  1991,  by  a  Rent
          Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known as 
          41-41 44th Street, Sunnyside, New York, wherein the Rent Adminis 
          trator determined that the owner was entitled to a rent  increase
          based on major capital improvements (MCI).

          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 the petition for review.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on June 23, 1988 by filing an 
          application for a rent increase based on maj r  capital  improve-
          ments, to wit - apartment and hall windows and new mailboxes at a 
          total cost of $43,472.00.

          On December 19, 1988,  the  Division  of  Housing  and  Community
          Renewal (DHCR) served each tenant with a copy of the  application
          and afforded the tenants the opportunity to review it and comment 
          thereupon.

          Neither petitioning tenants filed any objections to  the  owner's
          application although afforded the opportunity to do so.



          On February 5, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that some of the installations qualified  as
          major capital improvements, determining that the application 
          complied with the relevant laws and regulations  based  upon  the
          supporting documentation submitted by  the  owner,  and  allowing
          appropriate rent increases for rent controlled and  rent  stabil-
          ized apartments.  The  Rent  Administrator  disallowed  any  rent
          increases based upon the installation of new mailboxes. 
                         







          FB 120255-RT,  FC 110194-RT
          In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request 
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and allege that  their
          windows are defective.

          After careful consideration 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  Stabiliza-
          tion Law 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,  preserva-
          tion, 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  Commissioner  notes  that  neither  petitioner  raised   any
          objection to the quality or adequacy of  the  windows  while  the
          proceeding was before the Rent Administrator.  Accordingly, the 
          allegations raised for  the  first  time  now  in  administrative
          appeal may not be considered herein.

          The record in the instant case indicates that the owner correctly 
          complied with the application  procedures  for  a  major  capital
          improvement and the  Rent  Administrator  properly  computed  the
          appropriate rent increases. The tenants have not established that 
          the increase should be revoked.

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudice  to  the  ten-
          ants' rights to file complaints based on a diminution of services 
          if the facts so warrant.








          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, 
          it is          

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied 
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                Deputy Commissioner








          FB 120255-RT,  FC 110194-RT

                                          
    

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