FF 610470-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
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  FF              610470-RT
                 PATRICIA RICHARDSON,    
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      DE 630025-OM        
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On June 19, 1991, the above-named tenant, refiled a petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on April 17, 1991, by  a
          Rent Administrator concerning the building known as Apartment 
          2-C, 1861 Sedgewick Avenue, Bronx, 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 May 5, 1989 by  filing  an
          application for a rent increase based on a major capital improve 
          ment, to wit - new windows at a total cost of $68,505.00.

          On July 5, 1989, 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 petitioner tenant had not yet taken occupancy at the time  of
          the filing of the owner's application.

          On April 17, 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 stabilized apartments.  

          In her petition for administrative review, the current tenant  of
          Apartment 3-C  requests  reversal  of  the  Rent  Administrator's
          order and alleges, inter alia, that the owner  failed  to  inform
          her of a pending increase on her  vacancy  lease  when  she  took
          occupancy.







          FF 610470-RT

          In answer to the tenant's petition the owner alleges that it  did
          inform the new tenants and encloses a photocopy of  the  tenants'
          lease.  

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

          The Commissioner  notes  that  the  tenants'  petition  does  not
          challenge the sufficiency of the improvement nor its  eligibility
          for an increase.  The gravamen of the petition is the  allegation
          regarding  notice and collectability of the increase  during  the
          tenants' current lease term.

          The Commissioner notes that the tenants' lease  rider  adequately
          informs them of the pending application under Docket No 630025-OM 
          and that the rider is signed by both tenants  and  dated  May  4,
          1990.

          Accordingly the Commissioner finds the petitioner's allegation to 
          be without merit and determines that the rent increase  based  on
          the installation of new windows (MCI) is warranted  and  collect-
          tible. 

          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, 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
          is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:



                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                Deputy Commissioner









          FF 610470-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