OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

      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


     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

     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

     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

     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.


                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       Acting 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