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

          -------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEALS OF                               FK210239RT;   FL210011RT;
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             FL220010RT
                    5219 5TH AVENUE
                    BROOKLYN, NY                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  CI230060OM



          The above named petitioner-tenants timely filed petitions for 
          administrative review (PARs) against an order issued on October 28, 
          1991, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 5219 5th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 
          various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that 
          the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on the installation 
          of a major capital improvement (MCI).

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same order and 
          involve common issues of law and fact.

          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 these administrative appeals.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on September 15, 1988, by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          installation of a new roof and new prime windows at a total cost of 

          The tenants did not submit objections to the owner's MCI 
          application although afforded the opportunity to do so.

          On October 28, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installations qualified as MCIs, 
          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 
          regulated tenants.

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FK-210080-RT ET. AL.

          In these petitions, the tenants question the source of the monies 
          used to effectuate the improvements herein and allege that the 
          newly installed windows are defective; that the roof leaks (2R); 
          that one (1) tenant is a Senior Citizen who cannot afford the 
          increase; and that one (1) tenant's vacancy lease failed to state 
          that the tenant may be charged a rent increase for work done prior 
          to its commencement.

          In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that the vacancy lease disputed by one (1) tenant did, 
          in fact, contain the required provision concerning the payment of 
          rent increases as related to MCIs (copy of lease provided); that 
          complaints regarding the windows which were raised for the first 
          time in this proceeding have been inspected and scheduled for 
          repair at the tenant's convenience; and that a roof leak is 
          improbable since the two (2) tenants above Apt. 2R have reported no 
          such problem.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be 

          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 Stabilization 
          Code 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, preservation, 
          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 evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the DHCR 
          sent notice to all tenants on January 19, 1989, eliciting no 
          responses.  Since said notices were not returned by the United 
          States Post Office marked undeliverable as addressed, in addition 
          to the fact that the petitioners do not dispute proper notification 
          with respect to the application, it is presumed that proper 
          notification was afforded to the petitioners herein.  Hence, issues 
          raised for the first time on appeal may not be considered at this 
          time pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code.


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FK-210080-RT ET. AL.

          Nevertheless, the Commissioner deems it appropriate to acknowledge 
          the fact that the petitioner questioning his vacancy lease was in 
          possession of the subject premises herein when the application was 
          filed even though the actual improvement was made prior to 
          occupancy thereby affording the "new" tenant the same opportunity 
          to respond to the owner's application as all the other tenants;    
          and that Senior Citizens possessing a valid SCRIE, as indicated on 
          the Administrator's order, may not be responsible for rent which is 
          in excess of one-third of the tenant's household disposable income. 

          The Commissioner notes that this order and opinion is issued 
          without prejudice to the right of the tenants to file apartment 
          services complaints with the DHCR if certain conditions within 
          individual apartments require repair. 

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

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


                                                         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