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
|
