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

          -------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEALS OF                               GA120096RT/   GA110097RT
                                                   GA120099RT/   GA120100RT
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             GA110101RT/   GA120104RT 
                    83-43 118th Street             GA110105RT/   GA110106RT
                    QUEENS, NEW YORK               
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  EL130008RP



          The above-named petitioners-tenants timely filed Petitions for 
          Administrative Review against an order issued under Docket No. 
          EL130008RP on December 3, 1991 by the Rent Administrator (Gertz 
          Plaza) concerning the housing accommodations known as 83-43 118th 
          Street, Queens, New York, various apartments, wherein the 
          Administrator revoked the denial order issued on March 21, 1989 
          under Docket No. CL130235OM and granted rent increases based on the 
          installation of various major capital improvements.

          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 against the order issued under Docket No. CL130235OM which 
          denied the owner's application for an MCI rent increase based on 
          the determination that incomplete RA-79, Supplement forms 
          (contractor and/or vendor information) were submitted by the owner.  
          The Commissioner's determination of said appeal remanded the 
          proceeding to the Rent Administrator for further processing.  On 
          remand it was determined that the following installations 
          constitute major capital improvements and warrant a rent increase:  
          Boiler/burner, catwalk, plumbing, replacement windows and intercom.  
          The roof installation was withdrawn by the owner by letter dated 
          August 29, 1991.

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FL-120154-RT

          On remand, the Division served the tenants with a copy of the 
          owner's MCI application for the first time.  Although several 
          tenants in the subject building filed responses to said 
          application, only five of the nine petitioning tenants herein filed 
          any objections.  Three tenants in the following apartments:  3K, 
          4B, & 6H objected to the increase without making any complaints 
          pertinent to the installations while the other two tenants alleged 
          the following:  that the concrete flatwork is in need of repairs; 
          that the intercom has not been properly replaced; and that the 
          windows lack security- (Apt. 1K); that the boiler/burner is 
          unreliable since it breaks down frequently; that the concrete 
          flatwork was a poor job as the drainage is inadequate; and that the 
          bells in the present intercom should be changed-(Apt. 6P).

          Based on the tenants' allegations, physical inspections were 
          conducted on November 15 and 18, 1991.  The inspector reported that 
          the concrete flatwork was found to be done in a workmanlike manner; 
          that the intercoms in Apts. 1K and 6P function properly; that the 
          windows in Apt. 1K lack security; and that the heat/hot water is 
          adequate in Apt. 6P.

          In their Petitions for Administrative Review, the tenants contend, 
          in substance, that the old boiler/burner was fifty years old and 
          needed repairs since it broke down frequently; that since the new 
          boiler/burner was installed there is an inadequate supply of hot 
          water; that when it rains the tenants cannot walk on the catwalk 
          because of flooding caused by poor drainage; that the old windows 
          were fifty years old and needed replacement for several years 
          before they were finally replaced; that the type of locks on the 
          windows are unsafe; and that the present intercom system is not 
          adequate since communication is difficult.  The tenants in Apts. 1K 
          and 1N further assert that only the catwalk cost should have been 
          approved and said order should be modified to reflect same; that 
          all the other improvements are items which the landlord is required 
          to maintain as a matter of law under New York State laws; and that 
          it is unfair for the Rent Administrator to charge the tenants for 
          said costs when the proper remedy is already available under 
          federal and state tax law whereby the landlord can deduct same, 
          amortize same and otherwise separately benefit from such tax laws.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that these Administrative Appeals 
          should be denied.

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FL-120154-RT

          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 has expired, meet the definitional requirements of 
          major capital improvements.

          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 

          The Commissioner notes that none of the objections regarding the 
          quality of the work performed now being raised for the first time 
          on Administrative Appeal by the petitioners with the exception of 
          those raised by the tenants of Apartments 1K & 6P were raised while 
          the owner's application at remand was pending before the Rent 
          Administrator even though all of the tenants were afforded the 
          opportunity to do so.  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that 
          these objections may not now be considered herein.

          As to the contentions of the tenant in Apt. 6P regarding the 
          quality of the work performed, the record discloses that the 
          Division conducted an inspection of the subject building and that 
          the inspector reported that the catwalk concrete flatwork was found 
          to be done in a workmanlike manner; that the intercom functions 
          properly; and that the heat/hot water is adequate.

          With respect to the contentions of the tenant in Apt. 1K that the 
          improvements are items which the landlord was required to maintain 
          as a matter of law and that the Federal and State tax codes are 
          adequate remedy to recompense the landlord the Commissioner further 
          notes that these claims do not constitute grounds to bar an owner 
          from obtaining a rent increase for major capital improvements that 
          is otherwise warranted.

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FL-120154-RT

          This determination is without prejudice to the rights of the 
          tenants filing an application with the Division for a rent 
          reduction based upon a decrease in services, if the facts so 

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