FH 210129-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.:   
                                                  FH              210129-RT
                    CATHERINE ROGERS,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      EC 230072-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On August 11, 1991, the above-named tenant, filed a petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on July 24, 1991,  by  a
          Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known as 
          Apartment D-5, 1725 Emmons Avenue, Brooklyn,  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 March 6, 1990 by filing an 
          application for a rent increase based on maj r  capital  improve-
          ments, to wit - a compactor, elevator modernization, and  parapet
          wall restoration at a total cost of $192,100.00.

          On May 31, 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 July 24, 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.  
                         
          In her petition for administrative review,  the  tenant  requests
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges  that  the







          FH 210129-RT
          increase should not have been granted as a permanent increase.

          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 Code for rent stabilized 
          apartments.  Under rent stabilization, the improvement mu t  gen-
          erally be building-wide; depreciable under the  Internal  Revenue
          Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required  for  the  opera-
          tion, preservation, and maintenance of the structure; and replace 
          an item whose useful life has expired.

          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.

          As to the tenant's contention pertaining to the permanent  nature
          of the increases granted, the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  has
          concluded that the Rent Stabilization Law authorizes this Divi-
          sion to grant permanent rent increases for MCI's and that the law 
          does not limit  the  time  during  which  the  increases  can  be
          imposed.  In the Matter of Ansonia Residents Association, et al., 
          v. DHCR, et al., 74 N.Y. 2d 604, 543 N.Y.S. 2d 397 (1989).


          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