Docket Number: FF 610594-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 610594-RT  
                                                
             RAFAEL TORRES                       DRO DOCKET NO.: CC 630256-OM 
             JUANA GUZMAN,                        

                                PETITIONERS      Premises: 2 West 169 St.,
          -----------------------------------X     Apt. 15, Bronx, N.Y.
            
             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named tenants timely filed a petition for  administrative
          review of an order issued  concerning  the  housing  accommodations
          relating to the above described docket number.        

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue raised by the petition.

          The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an application for  a
          rent increase based on various major capital improvements,  o  wit-
          intercom, windows, pointing, water proofing, steam cleaning,  lobby
          and vestibule doors, repiping, kitchen modernization.
           
          Each tenant was served with a copy of the owner's  application  and
          was afforded an opportunity to review  it  and  comment  thereupon.

          The tenant filed an objection to the owner's application contending 
          that the owner is not entitled to a rent increase since  that,  his
          kitchen modernization was just a new sink, that the lobby was never 
          repaired - just new  a  door  installed,  repiping  may  have  been
          installed in bathroom tub and sink.  The tenant  does  confirm  the
          installation of windows, intercom and steam cleaning was performed.

          Thereafter, 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  documenta
          tion submitted by the  owner,  and  allowing  appropriate  rent  in
          creases.  The Administrator disallowed  any  increase  for  kitchen
          modernization.

          In their petition for administrative review, the  tenants  requests
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order  and  alleges  that  the
          intercom does not work properly, the windows  are  defective,  that
          all the improvements were completed in 1987  by  prior  owner;  and
          that none of the tenant's received forms to respond below.

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







          Docket Number: FF 610594-RT

          Rent increases for major capital  improvements  are  authorized  by
          Section 2202.4 of  the  Rent  and  Eviction  Regulations  for  rent
          controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent  Stabilization
          law  for  rent  stabilized  apartments.   Under  rent  control,  an
          increase is warranted where there has been since  July  1,  1970  a
          major capital improvement required for the operation, preservation, 
          or maintenance of the structure.   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 will not entertain the tenant's assertions  raised
          for the first time on appeal.   The  record  in  the  instant  case
          indicates  that  the  owner  correctly  complied  with   applicable
          procedures for a major capital improvement and the Rent  Administra
          tor properly computed the appropriate rent increases.   The  tenant
          has not established that the increase should be revoked.

          This order is issued without prejudice to the tenants right to file 
          an application for  decrease  in  services,  should  the  facts  so
          warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law Code,  and
          the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, 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