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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE      DOCKET Nos.:  GE110003RT;
          APPEALS OF                               GE110034RT;   GE110358RT;
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             GE120036RT
                    35-08 95TH STREET
                    JACKSON HEIGHTS, NY            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  DL130064OM

                                   PETITIONERS
          -------------------------------------X

          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 April 20, 
          1992, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 35-08 95th Street, Jackson Heights, New 
          York, various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined 
          that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on the 
          installation of a major capital improvement (MCI).

          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 December 7, 1989, by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          installation of a waste compactor at a total cost of $11,975.00.

          The tenants did not submit an objection to the owner's MCI 
          application although afforded the opportunity to do so.

          On April 20, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installation qualified as an MCI, 
          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.















          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. GE110003RT ET. AL.

          In these petitions, the tenants contend, in substance, that the 
          installation was not performed in a workmanlike manner; that the 
          incinerator is not used because garbage placed there is ultimately 
          taken outside by the Superintendent; that one tenant is a Senior 
          Citizen who cannot afford the increase; that one tenant who moved 
          in when the application was pending did not receive notice of the 
          proceeding; and that the owner is not maintaining services 
          appropriately.

          In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that the tenants failed to provide a valid reason for 
          the modification or reversal of the order herein; that the 
          compactor was properly installed; that the compactor was inspected 
          by the appropriate agencies and a licensed architect who certified 
          that the compactor met all of the New York City requirements (copy 
          of architect's statement submitted); that the compactor is used 
          regularly; and that, with respect to the one tenant disputing 
          proper notice, the tenant's vacancy lease contained the provision 
          notifying the tenant of the pending MCI application (copy of the 
          lease containing said provision submitted).

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

          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 cases indicate that with 
          exception to one petitioner whose vacancy lease provided notice of 
          the pending application as required by the DHCR, all of the 
          petitioners were in possession of the subject premises at the time 
          notice was sent to all tenants by the DHCR.  Said notice elicited 
          one response.  Presumably, all tenants were given proper 
          notification as said notices were not returned by the United States 
          Post Office marked undeliverable as addressed.  Therefore, the 
          issues raised herein for the first time on appeal are generally 
          considered to be outside the scope of the Commissioner's review in 
          accordance with Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code.







                                          2






          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. GE110003RT ET. AL.

          However, the Commissioner deems it appropriate to note that, as 
          provided for in the Administrator's order, Senior Citizens 
          possessing a valid SCRIE may not have to pay rent in excess of one- 
          third of their household disposable income; and that the owner has 
          complied with the DHCR requirement mandating notice to prospective 
          tenants via a vacancy lease provision stating that an MCI 
          application is pending prior to effectuating a vacancy lease which 
          is evidenced by a copy thereof.

          It is further noted that this order and opinion is issued without 
          prejudice to the right of the tenants to file apartment services 
          complaints or building-wide service complaints which may result in 
          a reduction from the tenants' rents, if the facts so warrant.

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























                                          3






    

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