FD 120017-RO
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 NO.:
FD 120017-RO
J. TEDESCHI,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER ZEI 120049-OI
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 8, 1991, the above-named petitioner-owner, filed a Peti
tion for Administrative Review against an order issued on March
29, 1991. The order concerned housing accommodations, known as
Apartment 5-B, located at 31-11 Crescent Street, Long Island
City, New York. The Administrator denied petitioner's
application to increase the tenant's rent due to the installation
of a bathroom floor.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and h s carefully con-
sidered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding by filing an application for
rent increase on September 19, 1990. Petitioner alleged that a
new tile bathroom floor had been installed in August 1990 at a
total cost of $500.00 to replace the old cracked floor. A rent
increase of $12.50 per month was requested on the grounds that
the tenant "has accepted and s obtaining the benefit of in-
creased services, furniture, furnishings or equipment. . ." The
tenant, who is rent controlled, responded that he never consented
to a rent increase or asked the owner to put in a new floor.
The Administrator denied the application. Pursuant to Section
33. of the Rent and Eviction Regulations (9NYCRR 2202.4) t e Ad-
ministrator ruled that the owner's installation constituted
ordinary repairs. Such repairs do not qualify for a rent in-
crease. The Administrator further noted that a rent reduction
order (Docket No. ZDC 120217-S) was issued for this apartment.
That reduction order, in part, ordered the rent reduced by $3.00
for a cracked and uneven floor. The Administrator reasoned that
the "new" floor was, in fact, a repair necessitated by this
finding.
On appeal the owner argues that the installation was a "capital
improvement" and not a repair. The owner also argues that the
tenant was advised that a new floor would be installed and con-
FD 120017-RO
sented thereto by being present and voicing no objection. The
tenant did not file a response.
After a careful review of the evidence in the record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
denied.
Pursuant to 9NYCRR 2202.4(a) of t e Rent and Eviction Regula-
tions:
"The Administrator may grant an appropriate
adjustment of a maximum rent where he finds
that:
a) the landlord and tenant, by
mutual voluntary written agreement
subject to t e approval of the Ad-
ministrator, agree to a substantial
increase in dwelling space or a
change in the services, furniture,
furnishings or equipment provided
in the housing accommodation; or
the tenant has accepted and is ob-
taining the benefit of increased
services, furniture, furnishings or
equipment;"
In the instant case, there has clearly been no written agreement
between the parties. Moreover, although the tenant did not ob-
ject to installation of a new floor, this cannot be considered
"increased services, furniture, furnishings or equipment" since
it was a repair necessitated by a prior determination that the
existing floor was defective. The prior rent reduction order for
a cracked and uneven bathroom floor with missing tiles and an im
proper covering directed the owner to make repairs within 30
days. The owner's decision to repair the floor by installing new
ceramic tiles warrants restoration of the rent, which has been
granted in a separate proceeding, but does not justi y an addi-
tional rent increase.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
