FE 410448-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
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:   FE 410448-RT;
                                                  FE 410450-RT;  FE 410451-RT;
                 VARIOUS TENANTS OF               FE 410452-RT;  FE 410453-RT;
                 35   HAMILTON   PLACE,                 RENT    ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                  PETITIONER      CD 430027-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW  
                                          

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

          Various tenants of the above-named building  filed  timely  peti-
          tions for administrative review of an order  issued  on  May  14,
          1991, by a Rent Administrator concerning  housing  accommodations
          known as 35 Hamilton Place, New York, New York wherein  the  Rent
          Administrator determined that the owner was entitled  to  a  rent
          increased based on the installation  of  major  capital  improve-
          ments.

          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 1, 1988 by filing an 
          application for a rent increase based on major  capital  improve-
          ments, to wit - brick pointing, elevator cab, intercom, doors and 
          windows at a total cost of $164,150.00.

          On October 13, 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
          thereupon.

          The petitioning tenants  did  not  file  any  objections  to  the
          owner's application although afforded an opportunity to do so.

          On May 14, 1991, the  Administrator  issued  the  order  appealed
          from.  The  Administrator  found  that  $5,000.00  of  the  brick
          pointing was not substantiated, the elevator cab did not  qualify
          as an MCI and $8,280 of the doors were  not  substantiated.   The
          remainder of the installations were  found  to  constitute  major
          capital improvements.  Appropriate rent  increases  were  allowed
          for rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments.

          In their petitions, the tenants all argued that  they  could  not
          afford the rent increase ordered by the Administrator. Petitioner 







          FE 410448-RT
          Mendez also claimed that the windows, intercom and elevator  were
          not working properly.  

          The owner did not file a response.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that these petitions should be denied.

          The Commissioner notes  that  none  of  the  petitioning  tenants
          raised any objections  to  the  quality  or  sufficiency  of  the
          owner's installations during the more than  two  years  that  the
          proceeding was pending before the Rent  Administrator,  and  that
          they raise their objections for the first time on  administrative
          appeal.

          Further, the Commissioner notes that the tenants' allegations are 
          unsupported by any evidence attached to their petitions and  they
          have not offered any facts or explanation to establish that their 
          allegations could not reasonably have been offered or included in 
          the proceeding prior to the issuance of the order under review.

          Accordingly, pursuant to prior administrative decisions under the 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations and pursuant to Section  2529.6  of
          the Rent Stabilization Code the tenants' allegations may  not  be
          considered now when offered for the first time on  administrative
          appeal.

          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 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.

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudice  to  the  ten-
          ants' rights as they may pertain to applications to the  Division
          for reductions of rent based upon diminutions of services.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, it is,

          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.








          FE 410448-RT
          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                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