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.:  GE620200RT,
          APPEALS OF                               GE630144RT,   GE630233RT,
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             GE630234RT,   GE630235RT 
                    273-275-277 EAST
                    239TH STREET, BRONX, NY        RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  FC630183OM

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

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On various dates, the above named petitioner-tenants timely filed 
          petitions for administrative review (PARs) against an order issued 
          on April 17, 1992, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning 
          the housing accommodations known as 273-275-277 East 239th Street, 
          Bronx, New York, various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator 
          partially granted the application (for rent controlled apartments 
          only) based on the installation of various 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 March 28, 1991, by initially 
          filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          installations of a new roof and pointing at the claimed cost of 
          $80,000.00.

          On April 17, 1992 the Rent Administrator granted, in part, the 
          owner's MCI application and authorized a rent increase for the rent 
          controlled apartments based on the entire claimed installation cost 
          for a new roof and pointing.  A rent increase for the rent 
          stabilized apartments was disallowed for those installations on the 
          grounds that the owner had failed to file its application within 
          two years of the installations completion dates.

          In these petitions, the tenants question the filing of the MCI 
          application in the name of the former owner some 13 months after 
          the new owner acquired the subject property and clearly two years 
          after the completion of the major capital improvements; and that 
          notice of owner's application was not made on March 28, 1991 (the 
          date the owner filed his MCI application).











          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. GE620200RT ET AL

          In response to the tenants' petitions the owner contends, in 
          substance, that the rent increase is based on the approval of the 
          major capital improvements and that although the MCIs were not 
          performed by the former owner, based on the purchase agreement the 
          benefits of the improvements (which are permanent fixtures) would 
          pass to the current owner.

          One tenant responded to the owner's response, reiterating the 
          contentions in the Petition for Administrative Review.

          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.  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.  

          The record discloses that the owner substantiated the installation 
          of the various improvements to the premises which was found to 
          constitute major capital improvements, and the rent increase 
          authorized by the Rent Administrator was computed on the proven 
          cost in accordance with the rent law and established procedures.  
          The argument advanced by the tenants in their petitions that the 
          owner filed the application more than two years after their 
          completion and beyond the allowable period for filing for major 
          capital improvements is not applicable as there is no time 
          limitation with respect to rent controlled apartments.

          The tenants' contention that they were not served on March 25, 1991 
          is irrelevant as the record discloses that service was made by the 
          DHCR on April 17, 1991.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the New York City Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are denied, 
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                       ____________________
                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                        Deputy Commissioner


                                          2



                                  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.:  GE620200RT,
          APPEALS OF                               GE630144RT,   GE630233RT,
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             GE630234RT,   GE630235RT 
                    273-275-277 EAST
                    239TH STREET, BRONX, NY        RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  FC630183OM

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

           ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On various dates, the above named petitioner-tenants timely filed 
          petitions for administrative review (PARs) against an order issued 
          on April 17, 1992, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning 
          the housing accommodations known as 273-275-277 East 239th Street, 
          Bronx, New York, various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator 
          partially granted the landlord's major capital improvement (MCI) 
          application. 

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          petitions for a uniform 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 landlord commenced this proceeding on March 28, 1991, by filing 
          an application for a rent increase based on the installations of a 
          new roof and pointing at the claimed cost of $80,000.00.

          On April 17, 1992 the Rent Administrator granted, in part, the 
          landlord's MCI application and authorized a rent increase for the 
          rent controlled apartments based on the entire claimed installation 
          cost of the new roof and pointing.  A rent increase for the rent 
          stabilized apartments was disallowed for those installations on the 
          grounds that the landlord had failed to file its application within 
          two years of the installations' completion dates.

          In these petitions, the tenants question, inter alia, the filing of 
          the MCI application in the name of the former landlord some 13 
          months after the new landlord acquired the subject property. 

          In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that although the MCI application was filed by the 
          former landlord, based on the purchase agreement the benefits of 
          the improvements (which are permanent fixtures) pass to the current 
          landlord.












          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. GE620200RT ET AL

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

          Section 2200.2 (h) of the Rent and Eviction Regulations defines a 
          "landlord" as
               an owner, lessor, sublessor, assignee or other person 
               receiving or entitled to receive rent (emphasis added) 
               for the use and occupancy of any housing accommodation, 
               or an agent of any of the foregoing.

          Section 2202.3(f)(i) states that 
               any landlord (emphasis added) may file an application to 
               increase the maximum rent otherwise allowable on forms 
               prescribed by the Administrator, only on one or more of 
               the grounds stated in Sections 2202.4 through 2202.12 of 
               this part.

          The undisputed evidence of record indicates that the instant MCI 
          application was filed on March 28, 1991 and was signed by Frank 
          Teply as "landlord".  However, the subject premises had been 
          conveyed by Frank and Hildegard Teply to the current landlord, 
          Woodlawn Hills Realty, on January 11, 1990 thirteen months prior to 
          the filing of the MCI application.  Furthermore, the Division's 
          records indicate that the registered landlord of the subject 
          premises as of April 1, 1990 has been Woodlawn Hills Realty.

          Based on the foregoing, the Commissioner finds that the instant MCI 
          application was improperly filed on March 28, 1991 by the former 
          owner who lacked legal standing to file same and finds that the 
          Administrator erred in granting the owner an MCI increase for the 
          rent controlled tenants.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the New York City Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are granted, 
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          modified as hereinabove indicated by denying the MCI increase for 
          the rent controlled tenants.  The owner is directed to refund to 
          the rent controlled tenants any excess rent collected as a result 
          of this order within 30 days from the date of issuance hereof.

          ISSUED:



                                                       ____________________
                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                        Deputy Commissioner


                                          2
    

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