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.: GD 210157-RT;
: GD 210158-RT;GD 210160-RT;
VARIOUS TENANTS OF 130 and 152 GD 210161-RT;GD 210213-RT;
72ND STREET, BROOKLYN, GD 210220-RT;GD 210253-RT;
NEW YORK PETITIONER : GD 210294-RT;GD 210296-RT;
------------------------------------X GD 210302-RT;GD 210304-RT;
GD 210305-RT;GD 210306-RT;
GD 210310-RT;GD 210313-RT;
GD 210365-RT;GD 210366-RT;
GD 210393-RT;GD 210394-RT;
GD 210395-RT;GD 210396-RT;
GE 210004-RT;GE 210006-RT;
GE 210007-RT;GE 210008-RT;
GE 210010-RT;GE 210012-RT;
GE 210013-RT;GE 210016-RT;
GE 210019-RT;GE 210023-RT;
GE 210047-RT;GE 210049-RT;
GE 210051-RT;GE 210053-RT;
GE 210055-RT;GE 210062-RT;
GE 210067-RT;GE 210068-RT;
GE 210073-RT;GE 210076-RT;
GE 210078-RT;GE 210081-RT;
GE 210088-RT;GE 210089-RT;
GE 210091-RT;GE 210094-RT;
GE 210114-RT;GE 210115-RT;
GE 210116-RT;GE 210117-RT;
GE 210118-RT;GE 210126-RT;
GE 210127-RT;GE 210128-RT;
GE 210140-RT;GE 210153-RT;
GE 210206-RT;GE 210287-RT;
GE 210288-RT;GE 210290-RT;
GE 210315-RT;GE 210341-RT;
GE 210342-RT;GE 210343-RT;
GE 220356-RT;GD 210168-RT;
GD 210169-RT;GD 210170-RT;
GD 210175-RT;GE 210413-RT
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: EA 210221-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioners timely filed Petitions for Administrative
Review against an order issued on April 3, 1992 by the Rent Administrator,
(Gertz Plaza) concerning housing accommodations known as 130 and 152 72nd
Street, Brooklyn, New York, various apartments, wherein the Administrator
partially granted the owner's major capital improvement (MCI) application.
DOCKET NUMBER: GD 210157-RT, et al.
The Administrator authorized rent increase adjustment for replacement
windows and a new roof. The order denied rent increases for parapet
coping/stone and brickwork.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues
raised by the administrative appeals.
Since these petitions pertain to the same buildings and involve a common
issue, these appeals have been consolidated for a uniform determination.
In their petitions the tenants contend, in substance, that they never
received a copy of the owner's MCI application; that the work performed
was in the nature of delayed maintenance and repairs; that said work was
done because of an anticipated coop conversion plan; and that their leases
in effect at the time of the issuance of the Administrator's order did not
contain specific information pertaining to a MCI rent increase adjustment.
In addition two of the tenants allege, in substance, that the roof leaks,
and that the windows were not installed in a workmanlike manner so they
malfunction and cold air comes into the apartments from around the
windows.
After careful consideration of the entire record the Commissioner is of
the opinion that these petitions 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. Piecemeal
work or ordinary repairs and maintenance does not constitute work for
which a rent increase adjustment is warranted under current and past
procedure.
A review of the record in the instant case discloses that the tenants
were notified by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) that
copies of the owner's MCI application were made available to them for
review both at the superintendent's office at the subject premises and at
the DHCR office located at Gertz Plaza.
Regarding the tenants who took occupancy pursuant to vacancy leases
commencing after the owner had filed its application, the Commissioner
notes that for the MCI rent increase granted by the Administrator's order
appealed herein to be collectib e during the term of the petitioner-
tenants' vacancy leases, said leases would have to contain a specific
clause advising the tenants that the rent charged was subject to
additional increase (during the current leases term in effect) as provided
by the Code and established Division procedures. In the absence of same,
said rent increase was not collectible until the expiration of the lease
term in effect at the time of issuance (April 3, 1992) of the MCI order.
DOCKET NUMBER: GD 210157-RT, et al.
As to the tenants' allegations pertaining to the conditions of items
needing repair, the Commissioner notes that these services claims are
being raised for the first time on appeal and are therefore inappropriate
for consideration at this level. However this order is issued without
prejudice to the tenants' filing an application for a rent reduction for
any decrease in services, if the facts so warrant.
The other contentions by the petitioners are irrelevant to the issue of
whether the owner is entitled to MCI increases for the installations
herein.
Based on the entire evidence of record, the Commissioner finds that the
Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New
York City, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied; and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
