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.:  GI510140RT
          APPEALS OF                               GJ530020RT/   GJ410021RT
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             GJ410022RT/   GJ410023RT
                    605 WEST 141ST STREET          GJ510026RT/   GJ510036RT
                    NEW YORK, NEW YORK             GJ510037RT/   GJ510038RT
                                                   GJ510039RT/   GJ510040RT
                                                   GJ510041RT

                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  ZFB530177OM

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

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The petitioner-tenants timely filed administrative appeals against 
          an order issued on September 3, 1992 by the Rent Administrator (92- 
          31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 605 West 141st Street, New York, New York, 
          various apartments, wherein the Administrator granted major capital 
          improvement (MCI) rent increases for the stabilized and controlled 
          apartments in the subject premises.

          The owner commenced this proceeding by filing its MCI application 
          in February of 1991 for the installation of apartment windows, 
          steam cleaning and front door metal gates.

          The Administrator's order appealed herein authorized a major 
          capital improvement rent increase for the apartment windows.  
          Disallowed by the Administrator were the claimed costs of the steam 
          cleaning and front door metal gates (not here at issue) as neither 
          constituted major capital improvements.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenants state, in substance, as follows:  
          The tenants of apartments 21, 61, 22 and 53 merely request reversal 
          of the Administrator's order;

          The tenants of apartments 2, 54, 23, 64 and 33 contend that the 
          rent should not be increased due to their low incomes; the tenant 
          of apartment 33 also contends that she paid $100.00 to install 
          window guards on the windows;

          The tenant of apartment 52 states that her apartment has not been 
          repaired;













          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GI-510140-RT

          The tenant of apartment 3 states that the increase is excessive;

          The tenant of apartment 4 states that the building is poorly 
          maintained and unsafe; the entrance doors are broken; unsanitary 
          conditions exist in the backyard; and the rent should not be 
          increased due to his low income.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that these administrative appeals 
          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 and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization 
          Code for rent stabilized 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.  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.

          It is the established position of the Division that the building- 
          wide installation of apartment windows, as in the instant case, 
          meets the definitional requirements of an MCI.  There is no 
          provision at the time the MCI increase herein was granted to exempt 
          tenants from all or part of the MCI increase based on the income of 
          the tenants.  The collection of the rent increase for rent 
          stabilized units is limited to and shall not exceed 6% of the rent 
          charged on the June 20, 1989 rent roll date in any 12 month period 
          with a similar limitation on the collection of temporary arrears, 
          with any overage collectible in succeeding years subject to the 
          same limitation on collectibility.  The collection of the rent 
          increase for rent controlled units is limited to and shall not 
          exceed 15% of the rent charged on the rent roll date in any 12 
          month period.  

          The Commissioner is not unmindful of the possibility that the rent 
          increases may prove burdensome to some tenants.  However, the 
          Commissioner is constrained by the applicable statutory and 
          regulatory provisions to grant such increases as are warranted.  A 
          tenant with a valid Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption order is 
          exempt from paying so much of the MCI rent increase which would 
          cause the rent to exceed one-third of the tenant's monthly 
          disposable income and, if applicable, the tenants may pursue the 
          matter of this possible benefit with the New York City Department 
          of the Aging.










          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GI-510140-RT

          With regard to the tenant's (apartment 33) contention that she 
          incurred costs to install window guards, the Commissioner notes 
          that an owner is required to maintain that level of service which 
          was provided or required to be provided on the applicable "base 
          date", and all additional services provided or required to be 
          provided thereafter.  The Courts have held that such services are 
          not confined to the services set forth in the lease in effect on 
          the "base date", but that it is the actual services, not the lease 
          provisions, which control the requisite level of services.  
          Consequently, it has been held that where a tenant, with the 
          owner's express or implied consent and with or without a separate 
          charge, installed a window guard in the apartment, the tenant's 
          right to maintain the window guard constitutes a service included 
          in the rent which the owner is not permitted to modify or 
          discontinue.  Unless the owner did not consent to a window guard 
          being installed in a tenant's apartment, the owner must, at his or 
          her own expense, remove and reinstall said item when any exterior 
          work requires such removal and reinstallation.  

          The Commissioner notes that none of the petitioner-tenants raised 
          any objections as to the quality or adequacy of the window 
          installation either on appeal or while this proceeding was before 
          the Rent Administrator although they were afforded the opportunity 
          to do so.

          As to the tenants' contention with respect to the maintenance of 
          services, a review of Division records discloses that there were no 
          orders outstanding against the subject premises based on the 
          owner's failure to maintain building-wide services at the time the 
          Administrator's order was issued.  The determination herein is 
          without prejudice to the right of the tenants to file an 
          application for a rent reduction based on a diminution of services, 
          if the facts so warrant.

          On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the 
          Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations for 
          New York City and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

          ORDERED, that these administrative appeals 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






    

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