FI 110193-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.:  
                                                  FI              110193-RT
                  ELEVENIA MAKAHON,                                   
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      CH 130083-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          The above-named tenant filed a timely  petition  for  administra-
          tive review of an order issued on August  23,  1991,  by  a  Rent
          Administrator concerning the building  known  as  89-17  Rutledge
          Avenue,  Glendale,  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 August 9, 1988  by  filing
          an application for a rent  increase  based  on  a  major  capital
          improvement, to wit - a new boiler and burner at a total cost  of
          $37,600.00.

          On January 11 and April 18, 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  tenant  filed  an  objection  to  the   owner's  application
          alleging in substance, that the installations were the  responsi-
          ibility of the owner and not improvements and also  objecting  to
          the permanent nature of the increase.


          On August 23, 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  tenant  requests
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges that there 







          FI 110193-RT                
          is inadequate heat in 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 Stabilizati n  Code  for  rent  stabi-
          lized 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 further notes that that installation  of  a  new
          boiler/burner is not maintenance or repair but  a  major  capital
          improvement.

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudi e  to  the  ten-
          ant's right  to  file  a  complaint  based  on  a  diminution  of
          services if the facts so warrant.

          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.


          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