STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEALS      OF                                  DOCKET       NOS.
                                                 FB 210424 RT 
                                              :       FC      210132      RT
                                                 D.R.O. DOCKET NO.
                                                 CB 210006 OM 
           CORINTHIA               A.               BERNARD                &
           ANNETTE                                                   JOHNSON
                                 PETITIONERS  :  


               The above-named petitioners-tenants  filed  timely  petitions
          for administrative review against an order issued on December  20,
          1990 by an  administrator  concerning  the  housing  accommodation
          known as 1904  Nostrand  Ave.,  Brooklyn,  New  York  wherein  the
          Administrator granted the owner's application for a rent  increase
          based on 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 the administrative appeal.  

               The owner commenced this proceeding on February  4,  1988  by
          filing  an  application  for  a  rent  increase   based   on   the
          installation  of  various  major   capital   improvements   (MCI).
          Specifically the owner stated that $34,460.00  had  been  expended
          for a new boiler/burner, replacement windows, a new roof, and  new

               On June 9, 1988, the Administrator served each tenant with  a
          copy of the owner's application  and  the  appropriate  forms  for
          filing an answer.  No responses were received  although  three  of
          the application transmittal envelopes were returned  by  the  Post
          Office with the notation that the addressees had moved.   

               In an order issued December 20, 1990, the Administrator found 
          that $33,760.00 qualified as approved net costs for Major  Capital
          Improvements and ordered a rent increase of $12.79  per  room  per

               In one petition for administrative review the tenant  objects
          to the increase  asserting,  that  since  having  moved  onto  the

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. FB 210424 RT & FC 210132 RT
          subject premises in April 1987, there have been no improvements in 
          the apartment, except the installation of a new door. 

               In the other petition, the  tenant  asserts  that  the  owner
          received insurance proceeds  for  a  fire  in  the  basement  that
          affected the boiler, that the owner failed to  include  commercial
          tenants on the first floor, and that the rent increase  exceeds  6

               The owner did not submit an answer to either petition.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions  should
          be denied. 

               The scope of review in administrative appeals is  limited  by
          Section 2529.6  of  the  Rent  Stabilization  Code  to  facts  and
          evidence  that  were  before  the  Administrator  unless   it   is
          established that facts or evidence  submitted  with  the  petition
          could not have been  included  in  the  proceeding  prior  to  the
          issuance of the order being appealed.  The tenants herein did  not
          answer  the  proceeding  when  it  was  before  the  Administrator
          although afforded an  opportunity  to  do  so.   Accordingly,  the
          issues raised in  the  petitions  are  inappropriate  matters  for
          consideration for the first time on appeal.  

               Moreover,  a  review  of  the  record  in  the  instant  case
          indicates that the owner correctly complied with  the  application
          procedures for a Major Capital Improvement and  the  Administrator
          properly calculated the appropriate rent increases.   The  tenants
          have not put forth any arguments or evidence establishing that the 
          MCI increase should be revoked.

               According to Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Law, an 
          installation qualifies as a major capital  improvement  if  it  is
          building-wide; depreciable under the  Internal  Revenue  Code;  be
          other than for  ordinary  repairs;  required  for  the  operation,
          preservation, and maintenance of the  structure;  and  replace  an
          item whose useful life has expired. 

               It is also noted that with  the  exception  of  windows,  the
          installations for which the rent increase was granted were not
          within individual apartments, and the tenant who moved in in April 
          1987  may  not  have  been  aware  that  a  new  roof  and  a  new
          boiler/burner had been installed prior to  her  taking  occupancy.
          Nevertheless,  the  owner  adequately  documented  by   means   of
          cancelled checks and contracts that the claimed improvements  were

               Moreover, the allegation regarding  fire  insurance  proceeds
          was not raised below and is not  supported  by  any  corroborating

               The owner also included commercial units in the  application,

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. FB 210424 RT & FC 210132 RT
          contrary to the tenant's assertions.

               As for the contention that the rent increase exceeds 6%,  the
          parties  are  advised  that  pursuant  to   the   terms   of   the
          Administrator's order, as stated in the portion of the  attachment
          entitled "Limitations", for any  12-month  period,  the  permanent
          increase collectible may not exceed 6% of the rent that was listed 
          on the Schedule  of  Monthly  Rental  income  submitted  with  the
          owner's MCI application.  The temporary increase for  arrears  may
          also not exceed 6%.  Any portion of the increase that  exceeds  6%
          must be spread forward to subsequent 12  month  periods.   If  the
          owner herein demands an increase in excess of the  6%  limitation,
          the tenant is advised to file  an  overcharge  complaint  and  the
          owner is warned that it may be subject  to  a  penalty  of  treble
          damages if overcharges are determined.     

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

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


                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. FB 210424 RT & FC 210132 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