FE 210192-RT


                                  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.:   
                                                  FE 210192-RT
               ROBERT         E.         SUNSHINE,         et          al.,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     BI 210002-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On May 13, 1991, the above-named tenant  representative  filed  a
          petition for administrative review of an order  issued  on  April
          24, 1991, by a Rent Administrator concerning t e  housing  accom-
          modation, known as 2790 Bragg Street, Brooklyn, 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  September  1,  1987  by
          filing an application for a rent increase based on a  major  cap-
          ital improvement, to wit  -  new  windows  at  a  total  cost  of
          $69,992.50.

          The owner certified that on  October  28,  1987  it  served  each
          tenant with a copy of the application and placed a  copy  of  the
          entire application including all requir d  supplements  and  sup-
          porting documentation with the  resident  superintendent  of  the
          subject building.

          Twenty tenants filed objections to  the  owner's  application  in
          opposition to any rent increase.




          On April 24, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the  order  here
          under review finding that the installation 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 stabilized apartments.

          In his petition for administrative review, the tenant  represent-







          FE 210192-RT
          ative requests reversal of the  Rent  Administrator's  order  and
          alleges  in  substance  that  the  installation  of  new  windows
          constitutes maintenance rather than a major capital improvement
          and that the tenants were not afforded an opportunity to comment.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied.

          The Commissioner notes that the windows which were replaced  were
          twenty-six  years  old  and  had  exceeded  their  useful   life.
          Although the tenant representative alleges that the tenants  were
          not afforded an opportunity to comment, this allegation is belied 
          by the comments of twenty tenants  which  are  contained  in  the
          administrator's file.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized 
          apartments.   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 record in the instant case indicates that the owner correctly 
          complied with the application  procedures  for  a  major  capital
          improvement and the  Rent  Administrator  properly  computed  the
          appropriate rent increases.  The tenant has not established  that
          the increase should be revoked.















          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
          is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                Deputy Commissioner







          FE 210192-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