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

          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.
                                 PETITIONERS  :  


               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

               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 

               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    

          Also, one tenant attaches photographs to her petition to show  why
          the owner should not  obtain  a  major  capital  improvement  rent

               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. 


                                          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

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