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.:
JAIME ZUNG, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER BG 630466-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 2, 1991, the above-named tenant, refiled a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on February 6, 1991, by
a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known
as Apartment 3-D, 2965 Valentine Avenue, Bronx, New York wherein
the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was entitled to
a rent increase based on major capital improvements (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 July 27, 1987 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on maj r capital improve-
ments, to wit - a new boiler/burner, new roof, pointing and steam
cleaning, and new windows at a total cost of $89,350.00.
On August 8, 1988, and on February 15, 1990, 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.
No tenants' answers were received after the initial service.
Subsequent notices mailed on February 15, 1990 brought three
responses, alleging inadequate heat and hot water and defective
windows. The owner was notified of the complaint . An inspec-
tion completed on December 10, 1990 revealed that heat and hot
water were adequate.
On February 6, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that the installations qualified as major
capital improvements, 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-
The Rent Administrator disallowed $8,630.50 of the total costs
claimed by the owner.
In his petition for administrative review, the tenant requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges that the
new boiler breaks down and that there is no heat or hot water
three times a month.
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 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized
apartments. Under rent stabilization, the improvement mu t gen-
erally be building-wide; depreciable under the Internal Revenue
Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required for the opera-
tion, 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 ap-
propriate rent increases. The Rent Administrator investigated
the tenant's claiming inadequate heat and hot water and found it
to be unsubstantiated based on the inspector's reports. The
tenant has not established that the increase should be revoked.
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the
tenant's right to file a complaint based upon a diminution of
services if the facts so warrant.
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