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 NO.:FH 110049-RT
                                           :  
                                              RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
          MITCHELL KIRSCHBAUM                 DOCKET NO.:CD 130196-OM
                             PETITIONER    : 
       ------------------------------------X                             

              ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

       On August 8, 1991 the above-named petitioner-tenant timely refiled an 
       administrative appeal against an order issued on May 3, 1991 by the Rent 
       Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the 
       housing accommodations known as 65-60 Booth Street, Rego Park, New York, 
       apartment 6-D, wherein the Administrator grant rent increases for the 
       controlled and stabilized apartments in the subject premises based on the 
       installation of various major capital improvements.

       The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing with the Division on 
       April 28, 1988 a rent increase application based on the following major 
       capital improvement installations: boiler/burner, elevator controller, 
       replacement windows building-wide.  The tenants were served with a copy of  
       the owner's application and afforded an opportunity to respond.

       The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, granted in part 
       the owner's rent increases based on the installation of new apartment 
       windows installed building-wide and a new boiler/burner.     No increase was 
       allowed for the elevator controller.

       On appeal, the petitioner-tenant states, in substance, that the new windows 
       are cheaply manufactured and cannot be locked for safety purposes if placed 
       in an open position; that the new boiler fails to provide hot water 
       consistently; that the elevator is dirty and often out of order; that the 
       building is not kept clean; and that evidence of mice can be found in the 
       basement.

       In response to the tenant's petition, the owner filed an answer stating, in 
       substance, that the new replacement windows are more efficient than the old 
       windows' estimated to have been 50 years old; that not until this tenant's 
       complaint had any other tenant claimed a failure to provide hot water since 
       the installation of the new boiler/burner; and that the tenant had failed to 
       submit his PAR in a timely fashion.  

       After a careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner is of 
       the opinion that this petition should be denied.










       DOCKET NUMBER: FH 110049-RT
       The record discloses that a copy of owner's application for a MCI rent 
       increase was served upon the tenants by DHCR; and that none of the tenants 
       who responded to the application alleged any deficiencies with or objected 
       to the quality of the installations for which a rent increase was granted 
       while this proceeding was before the Rent Administrator although they were 
       afforded the opportunity to do so.  Accordingly, the tenant's objection may 
       not be considered at the administrative appeal level.

       It is the established position of the Division that the installing 
       recognized in the Administrators order (the building-wide installation of 
       new windows to replace windows which are 25 or more years old, and 
       boiler/burner) constitute major capital improvements for which a rent 
       increase adjustment may be warranted.  The record discloses that the owner 
       substantiated its application with respect to paid items by the submission 
       of contracts, contractors certifications cancelled checks and governmental 
       approvals and sign-offs for the installation and operation of the new 
       heating system.

       In addition, a review of Division records confirm that no orders were 
       outstanding against the subject premises based on the owner's failure to 
       maintain services of a building-wide nature at the time of issuance of the 
       Administrator's order appealed herein nor were any such complaints pending 
       against the subject premises.

       The determination herein is without prejudice to the right of the tenant to 
       file an appropriate complaint with the Division based on the owner's failure 
       to maintain services, if the facts so warrant.

       On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the 
       Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

       THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, and the 
       Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

       ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied; and that the 
       Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

       ISSUED:




                                                                     
                                            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