FA 410125-RT, et al.
                                
                       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 NOS.:
                                        FA 410125-RT
ROBERT COUTEAU, TED GOTTFRIED and       FA 410126-RT
NANCY A. BRESLOW & RICK LITTLE,         FA 430144-RT
                                        RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                        DOCKET NO.:
                        PETITIONERS     BK 430207-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.

The  above-named tenants, filed timely petitions for  administra-
tive  review of an order issued on December 12, 1990, by  a  Rent
Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known as  318
East  11th Street, New York, New York, wherein the Rent  Adminis-
trator  determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase
based on major capital improvements (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 November  30,  1987,  by
filing  an application for a rent increase based on major capital
improvements,  to  wit - a new front door,  intercom  system  and
front door locks at a total cost of $2,404.65.

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  of  Apartment 13 did not file an  objection  to  the
owner's application although afforded the opportunity to do so.


The tenant of Apartment 12 alleged non-maintenance of services in
the   building  and  alleged  that  the  installations  were  not
necessary and their costs excessive.

The  tenants  of  Apartment  8  requested  and  were  granted  an
extension  of  time in which to answer but did not  indicate  any
objections pertinent to the new installations.

On  December  12, 1990, the Rent Administrator issued  the  order
here  under  review finding that the installations  qualified  as
major capital improvements, 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  their  petitions for administrative review,  the  tenants  of
Apartments  13  and 12 request reversal of the  Rent  Administra-
tor's  order  and allege that the door/intercom installation  was
redundant  as there was already one in place, and that the  costs
were  excessive.  Attached to one petition are three  photographs
of the building entrance.

The   tenants  of  Apartment  8  request  reversal  of  the  Rent
Administrator's order alleging that they were never  afforded  an
oppor-tunity  to  respond or comment on the owner's  application,
that  the  installations were not improvements because they  were
unneces-sary, that costs were excessive, that if the  costs  were
not  excessive they should not have to pay for a luxury door, and
that services are not being adequately provided.  Attached to the
petition are various photocopied pages of correspondence  between
the tenants and the DHCR and the owner.

In  answer  to one tenant's petition the owner alleges  that  the
previous door was severely warped and beyond repair and that  the
intercom improved security and permits visitors to buzz residents
from outside the building.  Attached is a letter from a tenant in
substantiation  of  this allegation.  The owner  states  that  it
shopped around and that costs were reasonable.

The  Commissioner notes that the tenants of Apartments 8  and  13
did not raise any objection to the owner's application while this
proceeding was pending before the administrator although 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.  Although the tenants of Apartment  8  allege
that they were not afforded the opportunity to comment on the

owner's  application  and although they allege  that  they  never
received replies to their August 31, 1990 and September 12,  1990
letters,  the Commissioner notes than on September 28,  1990  the
tenants of Apartment 8 and the tenant of Apartment 12 were served
with  a  notice granting them an additional 30 days extension  of
time  to  file objections (until October 28, 1990) to  which  was
attached an answer form and a copy of the owner's application for
an MCI increase.  The tenant were further advised "if you want to
look  at the file for this case an appointment must be made  with
our  Public  Information Dept."  (It is additionally  noted  that
original  notice sent to the tenants in February, 1988 also  con-
tained  a notice advising the tenants that a copy of the  owner's
application   complete  with  all  supplements,  schedules,   and
supporting documents was available for their review at  the  DHCR
office in Jamaica "after you call for an appointment."

The  Commissioner  further notes, after a  close  review  of  the
evidence contained in the administrator's file, that the costs of
the  installations were properly substantiated by  all  necessary
supporting  documentation  whereas the tenants'  allegations  are
unsubstantiated.   The  photographic  exhibits  attached  to  the
petition  of  the  tenant of Apartment 12 indeed corroborate  the
fact  that  the new door was installed and that the new  intercom
was installed in a new location.

Rent  increases for major capital improvements are authorized  by
Section  2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization law for rent stabilized
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
opera-tion,  preservation, and maintenance of the structure;  and
replace an item whose useful life has expired.

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 tenants have not established  by
a  preponderance  of  the evidence that the  increase  should  be
revoked.

This  Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to  the  ten-
ants'  rights as they may pertain to applications to the Division
for a reduction of rent based upon a diminution of services.


THEREFORE,  in  accordance with the Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
Code, 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:



                                      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