FK 510314-RT; et al. (16 dockets)
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 510314-RT FK 510319-RT
FK 520318-RT FK 510321-RT
FK 520320-RT FK 510322-RT
VARIOUS TENANTS OF FK 510323-RT FK 510324-RT
565 WEST 144TH STREET, FK 510327-RT FK 520325-RT
FK 510315-RT FK 510326-RT
FK 510316-RT FK 520382-RT
FK 520317-RT FK 510329-RT
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONERS CH 530126-OM
-----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve
common questions of law and fact.
Sixteen tenants filed timely petitions for administrative review
of an order issued on November 1, 1991, by a Rent Administrator
concerning the building known as 565 West 144th Street, New York,
New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the
owner was entitled to a rent increase based on major capital
improvements (MCI's).
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 17, 1988 by filing
an application for a rent increase based on major capital
improvements, to wit apartment windows, boiler/burner, new roof,
and mailboxes at a total cost of $97,005.00.
On January 12, 1989, the Division of Housi g and Community Re-
newal (DHCR) served each tenant with a copy of the application
and afforded the tenants the opportunity to review it and comment
thereupon.
Eleven of the petitioning tenants did not file any objections to
the owner's application although afforded the opportunity to do
so.
FK 510314-RT; et al. (16 dockets)
Five of the petitioning tenants responded to the owner's applica
tion objecting to the increase and alleging inadequate heat and
hot water. On July 25, 1991 the owner was notified about the
tenants' allegations. On August 20, 1991 the owner replied
claiming that there was no problem with the supply of heat and
hot water. On August 20, 1991 the complainants were notified
about the owner's claim. On September 9, 1991 one tenant
(Apartment 2-C) responded and reaffirmed the supply of hot water
as inadequate. On October 8, 1991 the supply of hot water in
the Apartment 2-C was inspected and found adequate.
On November 1, 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 controlled and rent stabilized
apartments. No increase was granted based on the installation of
new mail-boxes.
In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request
modification or reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and
allege in substance that the installations were regul r mainten-
ance rather than improvements, that service problems exist in the
building, that they did not request the improvements, and that
the windows are of poor quality.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that these petitions should be denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent sta
bilized apartments. Under rent control, an increase is warranted
where there has been since July 1, 1970 a major capital improve-
ment required for the operation, preservation, or maintenance of
the structure. 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 notes that eleven of the sixteen petitioning
tenants failed to interpose any objections to the owner s appli-
cation when this proceeding was pending before the Rent
Administrator even though they were afforded the opportunity to
do so. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent
Stabilization Code the objections they raise now for the first
time on administrative appeal, may not be considered herein.
The Commissioner further notes that the objections raised by the
five tenants who interposed answers were adequately investigated
by the Rent Administrator who found, based on an inspection and
the entire record which was before him, that there was no impedi
ment to the approval of the owner's application.
The Commissioner further notes that the owner's installations
constitute capital improvements not maintenance or repair as
FK 510314-RT; et al. (16 dockets)
alleged by the tenants. No tenant consent or request is required
for an owner to effectuate improvements to a property. Problems
with the windows' quality should have been raised during the
administrator's proceeding where investigations, corrections, and
adjustments could have been carried out and inspectorial confir-
mation ordered prior to the granting of any increase.
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the
tenant's rights to file complaints based on overcharge, a
diminution of services, or inadequate heat and hot water if the
facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City,
it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
