FL 220135-RT, et al.  (14 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.:   
                                                  FL 220135-RT;  FL 210136-RT;
                                                  FL 210137-RT;  FL 210138-RT;
                                                  FL 210139-RT;  FL 210140-RT;
                    VARIOUS TENANTS,     FL 210141-RT;  FL 210142-RT;
                                                  FL 210143-RT;  FL 210144-RT;
                                                  FL 210145-RT;  FL 220146-RT;
                                                  FL 210147-RT;  FL 210148-RT;

                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     CI 230128-OM        
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW  


          Fourteen petitioner-tenants timely filed Petitio s  for  Adminis-
          trative Review against an order issued November  22,  1991  by  a
          Rent Administrator, concerning the housing  accommodations  known
          as various apartments at  1040  Bushwick  Avenue,  Brooklyn,  New
          York,
          wherein the Administrator granted the application of the owner to 
          increase the rentals based on the installation of  Major  Capital
          Improvements.

          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 in the administrative appeals.

          The owner commenced the proceeding below in  September,  1988  by
          filing an application to increase the rentals for rent controlled 
          and stabilized apartments based on  the  pointing,  waterproofing
          and steam cleaning of the exterior.  The owner claimed costs of
          $86,148.75 for all improvements listed  in  the  application,  of
          which $72,300.00 was approved.   In  the  application  the  owner
          indicated that the building contains 227 rooms in 63 apartments.


          Two tenants submitted answers to the application, but  raised  no
          issues bearing upon this proceeding.

          The Rent Administrator's  order,  appealed  herein,  granted  the
          owner's application for an increase  of  $5.31  effective  as  of
          March 1, 1989, of the legal regulated rents for  rent  stabilized
          apartments in the subject premises based upon allowable, substan 
          tiated expenditures of $72,300.00 for the various improvements.








          FL 220135-RT, et al.  (14 Dockets)
          On appeal, all petitioner-tenants challenge the effective date of 
          the rent increase of March 1, 1989.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of  the  opinion
          that the petitions should be denied.

          With respect to rent stabilized tenants  Section  2522.2  of  the
          Rent Stabilization Code provides in substance that the  effective
          date for a rent increase for a major capital improvement shall be 
          the first rent payment date occurring 30 days after the filing of 
          the application.

          With respect to rent-controlled tenants, Section  2202.2  of  the
          Rent and Eviction Regulations provides in substance that no order 
          increasing or decreasing a maximum  rent  previously  established
          pursuant to these regulations should be effective  prior  to  the
          date on which the order is issued.

          The record in this case establishes that on September  13,  1988,
          the owner filed an application for a rent increase based  on  the
          major capital improvements cited above, which work was  completed
          in its entirety by July 18, 1988.  Said application was served on 
          the tenants on January 27, 1989, and all responses  wee  received
          by the DHCR before the end of February, 1989.  The record further 
          establishes that all steps in the application  process  had  been
          completed before the effective date of the order.   Consequently,
          the  determination  to  affix  the  effective  date  of  the  MCI
          increases for all rent stabilized tenants as March  1,  1989,  is
          correct.

          The Commissioner notes that the effective date of  rent  increase
          for the two rent-controlled petitioners  is  determined  prospec-
          tively only in accordance with the  above  provision;  therefore,
          the issues is moot and inapplicable in their cases.

          The petitioners should note that for the increases granted by the 
          Administrator's order to be collectible  during  the  term  of  a
          lease in effect at the time of the issuance of the order, such 


          lease must contain a provision authorizing the collection  of  an
          increase pursuant to a DHCR order.  The owner's violation of this 
          provision could result in a rent overcharge determination.

          This order is issued without prejudice  to  the  tenants'  filing
          applications with the Division for rent  reductions  based  on  a
          decrease in services, if the facts so warrant.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable  provisions  of  the
          Rent Stabilization Law and Code, and the City Rent Law a d  Regu-
          lations, 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.









          FL 220135-RT, et al.  (14 Dockets)
          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                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