ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FE 810360 RT ETC.
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 VARIOUS TENANTS AT THE DOCKET NOS.
PREMISES KNOWN AS 199 BRONX RIVER : FE 810360-379 RT
ROAD, 38 LAUREL PLACE, 103 GLEN FE 810388-390 RT
ROAD, AND 107 GLEN ROAD, YONKERS, FE 810392-393 RT
NEW YORK FE 810395-399 RT
: FE 810401-402 RT
FE 810404 RT
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.
YDI-8-1-0024/OM
PETITIONERS :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
In May, 1991 the above-described tenants filed petitions for
administrative review of an order issued on April 23, 1991 by a
Rent Administrator, concerning various housing accommodations in
the premises known as 199 Bronx River Road, 38 Laurel Place, 103
Glen Road, and 107 Glen Road, Yonkers, New York, wherein the
Administrator granted a major capital improvement (M.C.I.) rent
increase for the replacement of four vestibule and lobby doors;
four porches; mailboxes; thermal barrier windows, and two
compactors; elevator modernization; waterproofing and pointing
where necessary; installation of flagstone walks, steps, and stone
facing, and one-ply roof installation.
The Commissioner notes that the above-mentioned petitions
involve common issues of law and fact. The Commissioner is
accordingly of the opinion that they should be consolidated for
disposition.
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 administrative appeals.
The owner commenced this proceeding on October 3, 1989 by
filing an application for a rent increase based on a major capital
improvement at a total cost of $272,492.05.
Several tenants submitted answers stating that the
application should have been dismissed on the grounds that the
work was done in an unworkmanlike manner, that some of the
work was unnecessary, that several improvements were for items
that were already deteriorating, that some of the improvements
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FE 810360 RT ETC.
were only repairs and for cosmetic improvements, and that some of
the improvements were to correct building violations.
On April 23, 1991, the District Rent Administrator issued the
order here under review, finding that the installation qualified
as a major capital improvement, and allowing appropriate rent
increases. The installation of one-ply roofing was disallowed.
In the petitions for administrative review, the tenants
request reversal of the District Rent Administrator's order on the
grounds:
1) That the work involved was done in response to
building-wide housing violations;
2) That the work performed was necessary repairs
and not major capital improvements, and
3) That the work was done in an unworkmanlike
manner.
Also, one tenant attaches photographs to her petition to show why
the owner should not obtain a major capital improvement rent
increase.
In the owner's response to the tenants' petitions it is urged
that the correction of a housing violation by a major capital
improvement does not bar the owner from obtaining a major capital
improvement rent increase.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that these petitions should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the work done in the subject
premises constituted a major capital improvement within the
purview of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 and the
Tenant Protection Regulations. The work was required for the
operation, preservation, and maintenance of the structure. The
Commissioner further notes that the work done was not mere
repairs, but was work which materially added to the value of the
subject premises, and appreciably prolonged its life.
The fact that the owner installed major capital improvements
in the subject premises pursuant to either a court order or to
cure building code violations found by a government agency does
not deprive the owner of the right to obtain a major capital
improvement rent increase. Indeed, an earlier finding of building
violations is further evidence that the installations were
necessary for the continued proper operation of the building.
The tenants' assertion that the work performed was done in an
unworkmanlike manner is unsubstantiated. As to the photographs
attached to one of the tenants' petitions, the Commissioner notes
that the pictures do not show any evidence as to why the owner
should be denied a major capital improvement rent increase.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FE 810360 RT ETC.
The Commissioner notes, however, that this order is issued
without prejudice to the tenants' right to file an application for
a decrease in rent for any current decreases in services.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator's
order should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency
Tenant Protection Act of 1974 and the Tenant Protection
Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
denied, and that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the
same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FE 810360 RT ETC.
For Zyindex (For D.H.C.R. use only)
FE 810360 RT
FE 810361 RT
FE 810362 RT
FE 810363 RT
FE 810364 RT
FE 810365 RT
FE 810366 RT
FE 810367 RT
FE 810368 RT
FE 810369 RT
FE 810370 RT
FE 810371 RT
FE 810372 RT
FE 810373 RT
FE 810374 RT
FE 810375 RT
FE 810376 RT
FE 810377 RT
FE 810378 RT
FE 810379 RT
FE 810388 RT
FE 810389 RT
FE 810390 RT
FE 810392 RT
FE 810393 RT
FE 810395 RT
FE 810396 RT
FE 810397 RT
FE 810398 RT
FE 810399 RT
FE 810401 RT
FE 810402 RT
FE 810404 RT
FE 810402 RT
FE 810404 RT
|
