STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
9-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
DORITH MEGED, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER CD 130204-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 30, 1991, the above-named tenant, filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on March 27, 1991, by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known
as Apartment 2-F, 96-09 66th Avenue, Rego Park, New York wherein
the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was entitled to
a rent increase based on a major capital improvement (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 April 2, 1988 by filing
an application for a rent increase based on a major capital
improvements, to wit - a new boiler/burner, and replacement
windows building-wide at a total cost of $127,490.00.
On November 17, 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
The petitioning tenant was not yet in occupancy at the time of
the filing of the owner's application.
On March 27, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that the installations qualified as a major
capital improvement, 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 controll d and rent stabilized apart-
In her petition for administrative review, the tenant requests
modification of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges that
she took occupancy on June 1, 1989 and that her lease met none of
the notice requirements imposed on the owner pertinent to pending
MCI applications. Attached to the petition is a copy of the ten
In answer to the tenant's petition the owner states:
Tenant is correct and the increase will be
removed until present lease expires. At that
time the increase will be added to the re-
newal lease. It is also correct that tenant
owes no retroactive rent for the MCI.
Tenant's present lease rental is $590.34.
Her lease expires May 31, 1991. She signed a
one year lease and that will bring her rent
to $616.91. We shall add $20.76 at that
time, in compliance with rule that it may not
be granted prior to that time. The new rent,
after June 1, 1991 will be $616.91 plus
$20.76 for a total of $637.67.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the owner has conceded that the
tenant is correct in her allegation of the facts and has agreed
to the relief requested by the tenant. The Commissioner finds,
accordingly, that there is no issue to be resolved herein.
In the attachment to the Administrator's order, it is stated,
where the application for this increase was pending
prior to the commencement date of a vacancy lease, the
increase granted in this Order is collectible only if
such lease contains a specific provision regarding the
application pending before the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal, the basis for the application, and
that any increase granted pursuant to a DHCR order
would be effective during the term of the lease.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the tenant is exempt
from the MCI increase for the period June 1, 1989 through May 31,
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, 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