FD 120017-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  FD 120017-RO 
                    J.                                            TEDESCHI,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      ZEI 120049-OI  


          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

          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

          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 

          Pursuant to 9NYCRR 2202.4(a) of t e  Rent  and  Eviction  Regula-

                    "The Administrator  may  grant  an  appropriate
                    adjustment of a maximum  rent  where  he  finds
                         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

          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.


                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                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