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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS. FK 110176-RT
VARIOUS TENANTS RESIDING AT : FK 110177-RT;FK 110178-RT
88-08/10/12 197TH STREET FK 110179-RT;FK 110180-RT
QUEENS, NEW YORK FK 110181-RT;FK 110182-RT
PETITIONER : FK 110183-RT;FK 110184-RT
------------------------------------X FK 110185-RT;FK 110186-RT
FK 110187-RT;FK 110188-RT
FK 110189-RT;FK 110190-RT
FK 110191-RT;FK 110192-RT
FK 110193-RT;FL 110486-RT
FL 110487-RT;FL 110488-RT
FL 110489-RT;FL 110490-RT
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO. CK 130209-OM
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
In November and December, 1991, 23 tenants timely filed petitions for
administrative review of an order issued on November 7, 1991 by a Rent
Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 88-08/10/12
197th Street, Queens, New York, various apartments. The Administrator
granted the owner's application based upon the installation of major
capital improvements.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues
raised by the petitions for review.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly determined the
owner's application for a rent increase based upon a major capital
improvement.
The Rent Administrator's order appealed herein, increased the rents for
the subject rent-stabilized apartments by $5.37 per room, per month,
effective as of April 1, 1989. It was noted in the order that the owner
applied for an increase in the rents based upon the installation of a
boiler, pointing and waterproofing at a total claimed cost of $33,325.00
and that the total approved cost of the major capital improvement was
$33,325.00.
On appeal, the tenants assert, in substance and pertinent part, that the
heat and hot water in their apartments is inadequate. Three tenants
further assert that leaks in their apartments occur from the rain. Two
other tenants assert that their apartment's walls are crumbling due to
cracked brick.
DOCKET NUMBERS: FK 110176-RT, etal
The owner responded to the petition filed by the tenant of apartment 1F
(under Docket No. FK 110182-RT) asserting, in pertinent part, that all
three of the building's water heaters had been replaced; that the hot
water functioned normally; and that there were no further leaks in the
apartment. The owner also responded to the petition filed by the tenant
of apartment 1E (under Docket No. FK 110184-RT) asserting, in substance,
that a new heating system had been installed three years earlier; and
that, as of November 1991, three water heaters have been installed.
Finally, the owner states that he believes there have been no heat or hot
water problems since November 25, 1991.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be remanded.
A review of the record indicates that in answer to the owner's MCI
application for the boiler installation, several tenants complained of
inadequate heat and hot water. The record further reveals that several
tenants asserted that their apartments either continued to flood when it
rains or were showing signs of water damage.
In response to the tenants' answers, the owner asserted, among other
things, that the heat and hot water are provided by two independent
systems at the subject premises.
On October 23, 1991 an agency inspector visited the subject premises to
check the hot water, which was found to be adequate. The Commissioner
notes that there was no inspection of the heating system nor for the
presence of leaks or leak damage.
The Commissioner is therefore of the opinion that it was improper for the
Rent Administrator to grant the owner's MCI application in view of the
tenant's assertions that the heat is inadequate and there are leaks and
leak damage evident on the premises coupled with the fact that the agency
neglected to inspect for adequate heat or water leaks. Accordingly, this
proceeding is remanded to the Rent Administrator for such further
processing as may be deemed necessary to ascertain whether the heating
system functions properly and whether the pointing and waterproofing are
adequate.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law
and Code, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, granted to the
extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator for further
processing in accordance with this order and opinion. The order and
determination of the Rent Administrator remains in full force and effect
until a new order is issued upon remand.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
