FF 610505-RT


                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               9-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433


          ----------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  FF 610505-RT 
                      JUDI  COZZI,                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      EA 630081-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On June 20, 1991, the above-named tenant, refiled a petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on April 3, 1991,  by  a
          Rent Administrator concerning the  housing  accommodation,  known
          as Apartment 7, 205 City Island 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 January 8, 1990 by  filing
          an application for a rent increase based  on  major  capital  im-
          provements, to wit - a new roof, intercom, entrance and vestibule 
          doors, pointing, and waterproofing, and a heat timer at  a  total
          cost of $16,123.75.

          On April 12, 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.

          The tenant did not file an objection to the  owner's  application
          although afforded the opportunity to do so.




          On April 3, 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-
          ments.  
                         
          No rent increases were authorized based on the installation of  a







          FF 610505-RT
          heat timer.

          In her petition for administrative review,  the  tenant  requests
          modification of the Rent Administrator's order and  alleges  that
          the roof leaks into her apartment.

          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 Law for rent  stabilized
          apartments.   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  Commissioner  notes  that  the  tenant  did  not  raise  any
          objection to the owner's application while  this  proceeding  was
          pending before the Rent Administrator when her  complaints  could
          have been investigated, inspections  carried  out,  and  problems
          resolved prior to the granting of  any  increases.   Accordingly,
          the objections raised now for the first  time  on  administrative
          appeal, pursuant to Section  2529.6  of  the  Code,  may  not  be
          considered herein.

          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 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
          is, affirmed.


          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