STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER EC 230072-OM
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
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-
In her petition for administrative review, the tenant requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges that the
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