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
|
