FE 210516-RT

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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NOS.:   
                                                  FE 210516-RT
                 MAX MANTELL, et al.,             FE 230189-RT
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     CF 230145-OM


          The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve 
          common questions of law and fact.

          Various tenants, in timely manner, filed  and  refiled  petitions
          for administrative review of an order issued on April  12,  1991,
          by a Rent Administrator  concerning  the  housing  accommodation,
          known as 2157 Ocean Avenue, 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 June 20, 1988 by filing an 
          application for a rent increase based on a major capital improve 
          ment, to wit - new windows at a total cost of $67,782.00.

          On December 15, 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 

          Various tenants  filed  objections  to  the  owner's  application
          alleging in substance that the installation of new  windows  con-
          stituted maintenance rather than a major capital improvement.

          On April 12, 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 controll d  and  rent  stabilized  apart-
          In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request 
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's ord r  and  allege  in  sub-

          FE 210516-RT
          stance  that  the  window  installation  constituted  maintenance
          rather than a major capital improvement and further  allege  cer-
          tain service deficiencies in their apartment and building.

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

          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 t e  Rent  Stabiliza-
          tion Law 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,  preserva-
          tion, 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 Commissioner notes that although the tenants allege in  their
          petition that the new windows were not installed  correctly,  not
          one of these tenants raised this objection while  the  proceeding
          was pending before the Rent Administrator  when  this  allegation
          could have been investigated and problems with the  installations
          could have been corrected prior  to  the  granting  of  any  rent
          increases.  Accordingly, this allegation, which is raised for the 
          first time now on administrative appeal, may  not  be  considered

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudi e  to  the  ten-
          ants' rights to file complaints based on a diminution of services 
          if the facts so warrant.

          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  tenants  have  not  established
          that the increase should be revoked.

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

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


                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                Deputy Commissioner

          FE 210516-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