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.: GB 610449-RT
                                         :               GB 610453-RT
                                                         GC 610301-RT
          VARIOUS TENANTS                                FL 620109-RT
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                            DOCKET    NO.:     EA     630143-OM
                  
           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On various dates the  above-named  petitioners-tenants  filed  and  timely
     refiled Petitions for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
     November 25, 1991 by the Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall  Street,
     Jamaica, New York concerning housing accommodations known  as  1610  Mahan
     Avenue, Bronx, New York, various  apartments,  wherein  the  Administrator
     granted the owner's application for an increase  in  rents  based  on  the
     installation  of  a  boiler/burner  and  asbestos  removal  performed   in
     conjunction therewith.

     The owner commenced the proceeding  below  by  filing  its  major  capital
     improvement (MCI) application with this Division on January 19, 1990.  The 
     tenants were served with notice of the application  by  the  Division  and
     offered an opportunity to  examine  and  comment  on  same.   In  response
     thereto four (out of 54) tenants filed answers to the application alleging 
     that heat and hot water service  was  inadequate.   In  addition,  various
     elderly tenants commented on the strain the requested rent increase  would
     place on their limited resources.

     The order  of  the  Administrator  appealed  herein  was  issued  after  a
     physical  inspection  disclosed  that  three  of  the  four  tenants   who
     questioned the adequacy of the new heating system  either  withdrew  their
     complaint or hot water was found to be adequate at the  time  of  physical
     inspection.  As to the 4th apartment (3-B), while the inspector noted that 
     hot water was below acceptable levels the tenant thereof failed to respond 
     to a subsequent notice from the Division regarding the owner's  advisement
     that services were being provided.

     In their respective petitions the tenants contend, in substance, that  (a)
     heat and hot water is not provided  on  a  regular  basis,  (b)  the  rent
     increase imposes an hardship due to their limited resources  and  (c)  the
     room count as stated in the order is understated.

     In addition, the tenant of apartment 6-C contends, in substance, that  the
     owner sought  to  collect  immediately  rent  arrears  stemming  from  the
     Administrator's order.

     The tenant in apartment 3-B alleges that reference to the October 15, 1991 
     inquiry concerning the adequacy of the  hot  water  service  is  incorrect
     since he never received same.






          DOCKET NUMBER: GB 610449-RT; et.al



     After a careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner is of 
     the opinion that these administrative appeals should be denied.

     The record discloses that the owner substantiated its application based on 
     a  new  heating  system  by  the  submission  of  contracts,  contractor's
     certification, cancelled checks together with all requisite approvals  and
     sign-offs by the governmental agency having jurisdiction thereof.

     The tenants' unsubstantiated allegations concerning the adequacy  of  heat
     and hot water service since the installation of the new equipment are  not
     supported by the record and, in any event, relate to the  quality  of  the
     service as opposed to the malfunctioning of the heating equipment.  Should 
     the owner fail to provide services  as  required,  the  tenants'  recourse
     lies in their filing an appropriate  service  complaint  and  any  penalty
     which may be imposed as a result thereof.

     In this regard the records of the Division disclose  that  there  were  no
     heat or hot water complaints pending nor was there a rent reduction  order
     in effect based on the owner's failure to maintain service of a  building-
     wide nature at the time the order appealed herein was issued.

     The Commissioner notes that the tenants' contention regarding  room  count
     was not raised before the Administrator and therefore cannot be considered 
     at the Administrative appeal level.  The Commissioner further  notes  that
     the room count utilized by the Administrator did not  include  half  rooms
     and the owner is cautioned that it may not charge the tenants based  on  a
     room count in excess of that stated in the application.

     The unsubstantiated allegation raised  by  the  tenant  of  apartment  6-C
     regarding the owner's attempt to collect immediately rent arrears stemming 
     from the major capital improvement may give rise to a  complaint  of  rent
     overcharge but is irrelevant  to  the  propriety  of  the  Administrator's
     order.

     While  certain  tenants  may  experience  difficulty  in  paying  a   rent
     increase, the Commissioner is constrained  to  find  that  this  does  not
     constitute a bar to the owner's entitlement to collect the  major  capital
     improvement rent increase  found  warranted  by  the  Administrator.   The
     Commissioner notes, however, that as to  certain  tenant's  who  may  have
     valid Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption  orders,  the  rent  increase
     provided for in the Administrator's order may  not  be  collected  to  the
     extent it would cause their rent to exceed 1/3 of their monthly disposable 
     income.

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





          DOCKET NUMBER: GB 610449-RT; et.al



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

     ORDERED, that these petitions be and the same hereby are  denied  and  the
     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