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

          -------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEALS OF                               FL120155RT/   FL120349RT
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             GC110089RT/   GC110551RT
                    83-57 118TH STREET
                    QUEENS, NY                     RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  EL130004RP


          The above-named petitioner-tenants timely filed or re-filed 
          Petitions for Administrative Review (PARs) against an order issued 
          under Docket No. EL130004RP on December 6, 1991, by the Rent 
          Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 83-57 118th Street, Queens, New York, various apartments, 
          wherein the Rent Administrator revoked the denial order issued on 
          March 22, 1989 under Docket No. CL130236OM and granted rent 
          increases based on the installation of various major capital 
          improvements (MCIs).

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same order and 
          involve common issues of law and fact.

          On April 25, 1989 the owner filed a Petition for Administrative 
          Review (Docket No. DC130238RO) against the order issued under 
          Docket No. CL130236OM which denied the owner's application and 
          terminated the proceeding for an MCI rent increase adjustment on 
          grounds that the application was incomplete at the time of filing.  
          The Commissioner's determination of said appeal remanded the 
          proceeding to the Rent Administrator for further processing.  On 
          remand, it was determined that the installations of boiler/burner, 
          concrete catwalk, repiping and replacement windows constitute major 
          capital improvements and warrant a rent increase; and that the 
          mailboxes did not qualify as an MCI.  The claim for the compactor 
          was withdrawn by the owner by letter dated August 29, 1991.

          On remand, the Division served the tenants with a copy of the 
          owner's MCI application for the first time.  In response to the 
          owner's application, several tenants filed answers, contending, in 
          substance, that there is an inadequate supply of hot water; that 
          the heat is erratic; that the concrete work was improperly done 
          since it floods whenever it rains; that the new windows are 
          difficult to open; that there are violations against the subject 
          building; and that there is asbestos in the basement.

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FL-110157-RT

          Based on the tenants' allegations, physical inspections were 
          conducted on November 15 and 18, 1991.  The inspector reported that 
          the concrete work was done in a workmanlike manner; and that 
          heat/hot water was found to be adequate in Apts. 4F and 5C.  The 
          inspector also reported that access could not be gained to Apts. 1D 
          and 6P on either of the two inspection dates.

          In their petitions for Administrative Review, the tenants contend, 
          in substance, that the landlord is overcharging (Apt. 1D); that the 
          landlord has decreased services by refusing to provide a working 
          oven (Apt. 1D); that the old boiler/burner was fifty years old and 
          needed repairs since it broke down frequently (Apt. 4F); that since 
          the new boiler/burner was installed there is an inadequate supply 
          of hot water (Apt. 4F); that the old windows were fifty years old 
          and needed replacement for several years before they were finally 
          replaced (Apt. 4F); that the type of locks on the windows are 
          unsafe (Apt. 4F); that the present intercom system is not adequate 
          since communication is difficult (Apts. 4F and 5N); that there is 
          poor drainage of the catwalk (Apts 4F and 5N); that the windows are 
          difficult to operate (Apt. 5N); that the storm windows have been 
          replaced but the tenant is still paying for them (Apt. 5N); that 
          there is inadequate heat/hot water (Apt. 5C); that the type of 
          locks on the windows are unsafe (Apt. 5C); that the original notice 
          to the tenants which stated that the proposed increase was $17.30 
          per room, per month was erroneous and misleading since the actual 
          increase granted was $17.89 per room, per month (Apt. 6P); that the 
          Administrator's order was sent to an incorrect address, 85-87 118th 
          Street (Apt. 6P); that the subject building has over eighty 
          violations on record with the City of New York H.P.D. (Apt. 6P); 
          that the landlord has failed to maintain essential services (Apt. 
          6P); and that the landlord has failed to remove life threatening 
          asbestos (Apt. 6P).

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that these Administrative Appeals 
          should be denied.
          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent 
          controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization 
          Code for rent stabilized apartments.  Under rent control, an 
          increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970, a 
          major capital improvement 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 
          installations involved herein, to replace old items the useful 
          lives  of which have expired, meet the definitional requirements of 
          major capital improvements.

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FL-110157-RT

          The record in the instant case, which includes copies of various 
          proposals, invoices, contractors' certifications, cancelled checks, 
          governmental approvals and sign-offs, indicates that the owner 
          correctly complied with the applicable procedures for major capital 

          Regarding the contentions of the tenant in Apt. 1D that she is 
          being overcharged and that the landlord has decreased services by 
          refusing to provide a working oven, the Commissioner notes that 
          these allegations do not constitute grounds to bar an owner from 
          obtaining a rent increase for major capital improvements that is 
          otherwise warranted.  However, the tenant may file an individual 
          rent overcharge complaint and/or an application with the Division 
          for a rent reduction based upon a decrease in services if the facts 
          so warrant.

          As to the allegations of the tenants in Apts. 4F, 5C and 5N 
          regarding the deficiency of the boiler/burner and the quality of 
          the catwalk work performed, the record discloses that an inspection 
          conducted by the Division revealed that the heat/hot water was 
          found to be adequate in Apts. 4F and 5C; and that the concrete 
          catwalk was done in a workmanlike manner.

          With respect to the contentions of the tenants in Apts. 4F, 5C and 
          5N regarding the window locks and operation of the windows, the 
          Commissioner notes that windows were installed in 95 apartments in 
          the subject building and the fact that a limited number of tenants 
          (3) may have experienced minor difficulty with said installation is 
          not sufficient grounds to conclude that the owner is not entitled 
          to the MCI rent increase adjustment authorized by the 
          Administrator.  However, the owner is hereby directed to correct 
          any defective condition brought to its attention in writing, if it 
          has not already done so and the determination herein is without 
          prejudice to the right of the tenant filing an appropriate 
          application for a reduction in rent, if the facts so warrant.

          Regarding the tenants' contention about the inadequacy of the 
          present intercom system, the record discloses that no MCI rent 
          increase was granted for such installation in the order, appealed 

          As to the contention of the tenant in Apt. 5N that although the 
          storm windows were replaced she is still paying for them, Policy 
          Statement 89-5 states where an owner received an MCI rent increase 
          for installing storm windows prior to 1984, then installs new 
          replacement windows, a full MCI increase will be granted provided 
          that a minimum of fifteen (15) years has transpired between the 
          installation of the storm windows and the replacements.  The tenant 
          has not submitted any evidence either at the time the proceeding 
          was before the Administrator or on appeal to substantiate such 
          allegation nor has the tenant alleged that the storm windows did 
          not exhaust their useful lives. 3

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FL-110157-RT

          Turning to the contentions of the tenant in Apt. 6P, the 
          Commissioner further notes that the difference between the proposed 
          increase listed on the owner's application and the actual increase 
          granted by the Administrator's order resulted because of a revision 
          of the actual room count of the subject building; that although the 
          petitioner is correct about the Administrator's order being sent to 
          an incorrect address, it appears that the tenant still received 
          said order in a timely fashion; and that a review of the violation 
          report submitted discloses that the said violations do not reflect 
          the existence of any immediately hazardous conditions.  In 
          addition, there are no rent reduction orders based on the owner's 
          failure to maintain services of a building-wide nature outstanding 
          against the subject premises; and the owner's failure to remove 
          asbestos, if there is any, does not constitute grounds to bar an 
          owner from obtaining a rent increase that is otherwise warranted.

          This determination is without prejudice to the right of the tenants 
          filing an application with the Division for a rent reduction based 
          upon a decrease in services or filing appropriate complaints with 
          the Division alleging that the owner is not maintaining all 
          required services, if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and Rent and Eviction Regulations, 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 


                                                         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