DOCKET NOS.:  FK830108RO, ET AL.
                              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  :   
     APPEAL OF                              ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW  
                                          : DOCKET NOS. FK830108RO  FL810045RT
                                                        FL810034RT  FL810046RT
         FLEETRIDGE EAST OWNERS INC.,                   FL810035RT  FL810047RT
             c/o PAUL H. KERIN            :             FL810036RT  FL810048RT
     c/o PLATZNER INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC.,             FL810037RT  FL810049RT
       VARIOUS TENANTS, PETITIONERS       :             FL810038RT  FL810050RT
     ------------------------------------ X             FL810039RT  FL810051RT
                                                        FL810041RT  FL810052RT
                                                        FL810042RT  FL810053RT
                                                        FL810043RT  FL910040RT
                                                        FL810044RT
                                            DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
                                            DOCKET NO. MDB810018OM



      ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING THE OWNER'S PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN PART AND DENYING TENANTS' PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


     These petitions have been consolidated as they involve common issues of law 
     and fact.  The above named petitioners filed timely Petitions for Administra 
     tive Review against an order issued on October 28, 1991, by the Rent 
     Administrator, 55 Church Street, White Plains, New York concerning housing 
     accommodations known as various apartments, 636 North Terrace Avenue, Mount 
     Vernon, New York wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner's 
     application for a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent increase should be 
     granted in part.

     The applicable section of the Tenant Protection Regulations is Section 
     2502.4(a).

     The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has 
     carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues raised 
     by the administrative appeal.

     In Order Number MDB810018OM, herein under review, the Rent Administrator 
     determined that the owner would be granted an MCI increase for two oil 
     burners and boilers and replacement windows, but would not be granted an 
     increase for either a one-ply roof or tuck pointing or a computerized heat 
     timer.  The allowable costs were divided by the total number of co-op shares 
     building-wide, resulting in a $7.69 cost per co-op share amortized over a 60 
     month period.  Thus, the monthly cost for an apartment was $7.69 times the 
     number of shares allocated to that apartment, divided by 60.
     The Administrator directed tenants aggrieved by the increase based on 
     questions relating to apartment size to file rent overcharge complaints.








          DOCKET NOS.:  FK830108RO, ET AL.


     In its petition, the owner contends that the Rent Administrator's Order is 
     incorrect and should be modified because the Administrator erred by not 
     allowing increases for the roof and pointing.  However, the owner did not 
     allege any error regarding the disallowance of the computerized heat timer.

     In answer to this petition, the tenants contend that the order should be 
     upheld with respect to the roof and pointing because the roof was only a 
     "partial replacement" and the pointing "was only done in selected places."

     In their twenty petitions, the tenants contend that the Rent Administrator's 
     Order is incorrect and should be modified because (a) although the owner had 
     applied for a $13.08 per room increase the order "shows" an increase of 
     $10.50 on a  per share basis ($10.50 was the assessment per share imposed by 
     the apartment corporation for all the improvements.  $7.69 is the amount 
     imposed per share on the tenant by the Administrator.); (b) the Administrator 
     directed tenants aggrieved by the calculation of rents to file overcharge 
     complaints but the tenants contend this issue should be resolved in the 
     present appeal; (c) the Administrator used a 60 month amortization period 
     despite the fact that the legislature had changed the period to 84 months; 
     and (d) the owner's application to the Mount Vernon Department of Buildings 
     stated the cost of the oil burner/boilers to be $57,511.00 whereas the bills 
     submitted to the DHCR showed a rounded figure of $76,800.00, which the 
     tenants suspect was a padded figure to include the auxiliary boiler system 
     used during the installation.  

     In answer to these petitions, the owner contends that the rent increases 
     which were granted were correctly granted and should be upheld.  More 
     specifically, the owner states that items (a) and (b) of the tenants' 
     petitions involve statutory interpretations and the owner agrees with the 
     interpretations of the Division rather than those of the tenants.

     Regarding item (c), the disparity in price, the owner alleges the tenants' 
     allegations are unsupported by any evidence and "wholly false."

     Regarding one apartment, the owner added a paragraph to its answer stating 
     that the tenant was not protected by ETPA, having possession merely because 
     of an "option to buy agreement."  Furthermore the owner alleges the tenant 
     received no increase as a result of the MCI application in question.

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition should be 
     granted in part and that the tenants' petitions should be denied.

     The Administrator's order does not state the reason for the denial of a rent 
     increase for the roof.  However, the file indicates that the increase was 
     denied pursuant to Division Policy Statement (91-2) which states, in part, 
     that "roofing installations consisting of only a single ply of traditional 
     asphalt based materials (a top sheet) will not be eligible for a [MCI] 
     increase."  This Policy Statement was issued February 20, 1991 and became 
     effective thirty days later.  This Policy Statement is a revision of Policy 
     Statement 90-6, issued March 23, 1990, which stated it would apply to ETPA 
     buildings for MCIs begun thirty days after its issuance date.  The roof in 
     question was installed in 1984, at which time a one-ply roof did qualify for 
     an MCI increase under ETPA.  Accordingly, the Administrator erred by 
     disallowing an increase for the new roof.

     Regarding the pointing, the record show that the owner applied for an MCI 



          DOCKET NOS.:  FK830108RO, ET AL.

     increase based on "masonry repair and tuck pointing" at a cost of $11,000.00, 
     which was alleged to be necessary because of "many leaks, broken bricks and 
     tiles."  An August 31, 1984 letter from the contractor to the owner states 
     that the scope of the work would "include all masonry areas from the inside 
     parapet wall flashing reglet, up and over the coping stones and extending 
     down to and including the sill of the top floor windows.  It also includes 
     the bulkheads and chimney caps of each buildings...[and caulking] the 
     perimeters of those air conditioning sleeves that were showing seepage."  The 
     record shows the building has seven stories.

     DHCR's policy is to allow an MCI increase for pointing only when the work 
     covers all exterior walls where necessary.  Because the pointing work at 
     issue in this appeal was clearly limited in scope, the Administrator properly 
     denied an increase for that work.

     Turning to the tenants' petitions, the Commissioner notes that under ETPA at 
     the time of the underlying order, apartments in cooperatively-owned buildings 
     remained subject to stabilization both for non-purchasing tenants and for new 
     sublettees of the proprietary lessees.  Therefore, when a co-op plan was 
     already effective and the apartment owners paid for it via a per share 
     assessment, the Division also allocated the MCI increase on a per share basis 
     (rather than, e.g., a per room basis).  In this way each apartment increase  
     is proportional to the actual cost to each owner.  Nothing in the law or 
     regulations for the ETPA counties requires that MCI increases be allocated 
     only on a per room basis.

     While it is true that some tenants could pay a larger proportion of the total 
     cost than if the allocation had been done on a per room basis, it is also 
     true that other tenants will then necessarily pay less.  Nevertheless, it is 
     reasonable to assume that the co-op value of an apartment in a complex will 
     be roughly proportional to the benefit received by that apartment from an 
     MCI.  

     Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator correctly followed 
     that allocation policy in the present proceeding where the owner showed that 
     the MCI was paid for by a per share assessment.  (The Commissioner notes that 
     the proportion of the cost born by the subject tenants equalled the ratio of 
     the number of shares allocated to the subject apartments divided by the total 
     number of shares.)

     Regarding that tenant who the owner, in its answer, alleges received no rent 
     increase as a result of the subject MCI:  If it is true that the owner has 
     not imposed any MCI increase on such tenant there is no issue to be decided 
     regarding that apartment.  The owner was not prejudiced by the 
     Administrator's order with respect to that apartment.  However, the 
     Commissioner notes that this order makes no determination as to whether or 
     not such an apartment is or was subject to ETPA under the alleged "option to 
     buy agreement."  Furthermore the Commissioner notes that the owner included 
     that apartment in the list of rental apartments submitted with its MCI 
     application.

     Regarding the amortization period of 60 months used by the Administrator, the 
     Commissioner notes that Chapter 749 of the Laws of 1990 changed the period to 
     84 months.  However, that law does not apply to MCIs which were begun or 
     contracted for on or before June 28, 1990.  Therefore, the Commissioner 
     hereby affirms the Administrator's use of the 60 month period, as all work 
     herein was completed long before June 28, 1990.








          DOCKET NOS.:  FK830108RO, ET AL.


     Finally, regarding the discrepancy noted by the tenants between the cost 
     stated in the owner's application to the City of Mount Vernon Building 
     Department and that stated in its application to the Division:  The 
     application for alteration and repairs to the City of Mount Vernon stated an 
     estimated cost of $57,511.00 for the removal of existing boilers and the 
     furnishing and installation of one "new heating boiler" and one "new boiler 
     and storage tanks for domestic hot water."  The contractor named in that 
     contract is the contractor who did the actual work.

     However, the Commissioner notes that, contrary to the allegation in the 
     tenants' petitions, the Building Department application makes no reference to 
     the two burners which were also installed.  Staffpersons of both the Mt. 
     Vernon Building Department and the Fire Department confirm that an 
     application for a burner installation must be directed to the Fire 
     Department.  Therefore, the costs associated with the supply and installation 
     of the two burners are not included in the $57,511.00 figure in the Building 
     Department application, but, of course, are included in the total actual 
     price of $76,800.00.  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the tenants' 
     allegations regarding the burner-boiler installations are without support in 
     the record and that the Administrator properly granted an MCI increase for 
     these items.

     Based on the additional MCI increase granted herein for the roof, effective 
     retroactively to the dates the increase stated in the October 28, 1991 order 
     became effective (see page 3 of the Administrator's order), the Commissioner 
     hereby modifies the rent increases granted by the Administrator as follows 
     [the per share cost per month being ($12,000.00 divided by 19,060) divided by 
     60, or $0.01049, which is then multiplied by the number of shares to 
     determine the additional monthly rent for the roof]:
              
     浜様様様様様様用様様様様用様様様様様様冤様様様様様様様用様様様様様様様様
                                           ADDITIONAL                   
                              INCREASE    INCREASE FOR     TOTAL        
         APARTMENT  # SHARES  W/O ROOF        ROOF        INCREASE      
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳津陳陳陳陳津陳陳陳陳陳陳田陳陳陳陳陳陳陳津陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-1B       235      $30.12        $ 2.47        $32.59       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-1D       300      $38.45        $ 3.15        $41.60       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-1F       280      $35.89        $ 2.94        $38.83       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-2A       360      $46.14        $ 3.78        $49.92       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-2G       390      $49.99        $ 4.09        $54.08       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-2F       390      $49.99        $ 4.09        $54.08       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-2H       250      $32.04        $ 2.62        $34.66       


     浜様様様様様様用様様様様用様様様様様様冤様様様様様様様用様様様様様様様様
                                           ADDITIONAL                   
                              INCREASE    INCREASE FOR     TOTAL        
         APARTMENT  # SHARES  W/O ROOF        ROOF        INCREASE      
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳津陳陳陳陳津陳陳陳陳陳陳田陳陳陳陳陳陳陳津陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-2J       245      $31.40        $ 2.57        $33.97       



          DOCKET NOS.:  FK830108RO, ET AL.

     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-3B       320      $41.01        $ 3.36        $44.37       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-3C       250      $32.04        $ 2.62        $34.66       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-3D       300      $38.45        $ 3.15        $41.60       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-3E       280      $35.89        $ 2.94        $38.83       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-3F       390      $49.99        $ 4.09        $54.08       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-4C       250      $32.04        $ 2.62        $34.66       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-4D       300      $38.45        $ 3.15        $41.60       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-4G       390      $49.99        $ 4.09        $54.08       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-4H       250      $32.04        $ 2.62        $34.66       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-4J       250      $32.04        $ 2.62        $34.66       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-5A       360      $46.14        $ 3.78        $49.92       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-5B       320      $41.01        $ 3.36        $44.37       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-5D       300      $38.45        $ 3.15        $41.60       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-5E       280      $35.89        $ 2.94        $38.83       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-5F       280      $35.89        $ 2.94        $38.83       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-5G       390      $49.99        $ 4.09        $54.08       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-5H       250      $32.04        $ 2.62        $34.66         
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳  
         636-6A       360      $46.14        $ 3.78        $49.92       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-6B       320      $41.01        $ 3.36        $44.37       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-6C       250      $32.04        $ 2.62        $34.66       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-6D       300      $38.45        $ 3.15        $41.60       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-6E       280      $35.89        $ 2.94        $38.83       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-6F       390      $49.99        $ 4.09        $54.08       


     浜様様様様様様用様様様様用様様様様様様冤様様様様様様様用様様様様様様様様
                                           ADDITIONAL                   
                              INCREASE    INCREASE FOR     TOTAL        
         APARTMENT  # SHARES  W/O ROOF        ROOF        INCREASE      
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳津陳陳陳陳津陳陳陳陳陳陳田陳陳陳陳陳陳陳津陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-6G       390      $49.99        $ 4.09        $54.08       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-6H       250      $32.04        $ 2.62        $34.66       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳








          DOCKET NOS.:  FK830108RO, ET AL.

         636-6J       250      $32.04        $ 2.62        $34.66       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-7A       360      $46.14        $ 3.78        $49.92       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-7B       320      $41.01        $ 3.36        $44.37       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-7C       250      $32.04        $ 2.62        $34.66       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-7E       280      $35.89        $ 2.94        $38.83       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-7F       390      $49.99        $ 4.09        $54.08       
     把陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳陳
         636-7G       390      $49.99        $ 4.09        $54.08       
     藩様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様様

                                                                                
     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Emergency Tenant Protection Act and      
     Regulations, it is

     ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in 
     part, and the tenants' petitions be, and thee same hereby are, denied, and 
     the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, modified in 
     accordance with this Order and Opinion.

     ISSUED:


                                                                               
                                                    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