STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
-------------------------------------X ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET Nos.: GD210039RT,
APPEALS OF GD210040RT, GD210063RT,
VARIOUS TENANTS OF GD210064RT
532 LEFFERTS AVENUE
BROOKLYN, NY RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: DK210153OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above named petitioner-tenants timely filed petitions for
administrative review (PARs) against an order issued on March 2,
1992, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing
accommodations known as 532 Lefferts Avenue, Brooklyn, New York,
various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that
the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on the installation
of 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.
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 these administrative appeals.
The owner commenced this proceeding on November 21, 1989, by
initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the
installation of the following items at a total cost of $105,495.60:
a) new prime windows;
b) building entrance doors; and
The tenants objected to the owner's MCI application, alleging, in
substance, that the heat and hot water supplied to the building are
inadequate; that new apartment doors are needed; that the windows
are drafty; and that the building services and maintenance are
The owner responded to the tenants' objections by contending, in
substance, that as of December 23, 1991, all the necessary repairs
had been effectuated in all apartments; that adequate heat and hot
water was being supplied to the tenants; and that the windows are
in good working order.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GD-210039-RT ET. AL.
Subsequently on December 30, 1991, DHCR sent the owner's response
to all tenants who responded to the application with complaints
relevant to the MCIs eliciting three (3) responses which did not
pertain to the MCIs herein.
On March 2, 1992, the DHCR issued the order here under review
finding that the installations qualified as MCIs, determining that
the application complied with the relevant laws and regulations
based upon the supporting documentation submitted by the owner, and
allowing appropriate rent increases for rent stabilized tenants.
In these petitions, the tenants contend, in substance, that the
heat and hot water supply is inadequate; that the windows are
drafty; and that various apartment services are not being
In reply to the tenants' petitions, the owner asserts that the
tenants have not raised any issues which would merit modification
or reversal of the Administrator's order.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized
apartments. 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 evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the
tenants were given the opportunity to respond to the owner's
assertion that all the complaints submitted in the proceeding below
had been satisfied yet only one (1) of the petitioners responded
thereto, and said response raised issues wholely irrelevant to this
proceeding. Hence, the issues raised on appeal are matters which
have been properly addressed by the Administrator in the proceeding
below based on the tenants' failure to rebut the owner's claims.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GD-210039-RT ET. AL.
However, the Commissioner notes that this order and opinion is
issued without prejudice to the right of the tenants to file
building-wide and/or individual apartment services complaints with
the DHCR which may result in reductions from the current rents, if
the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are denied
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
Joseph A. D'Agosta