OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: GI610007RT
                                                 DOCKET NO.: FF6301260M
                                PETITIONERS   : 


          On September 2, 1992, the above named petitioner-tenants timely 
          filed a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order 
          issued on August 7, 1992 by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 2807-2809 Claflin 
          Avenue, Bronx, New York, various apartments, wherein the Rent 
          Administrator determined that the owner was entitled to a rent 
          increase based on the installation of  major capital improvements 

          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 this administrative appeal.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on June 18, 1991, by filing an 
          application for a rent increase based on the installation of the 
          following MCIs at a total cost of $94,920.00: apartment windows and 

          Three (3) of the tenants herein, out of twenty-eight (28), objected 
          to the owner's application, alleging, among other things, that the 
          existence of various conditions within the apartments which are 
          unrelated to the MCIs herein constitute a lack of services; and 
          that the tenants did not consent to the MCIs and therefore, should 
          not have to absorb the costs of installation.

          Moreover, only one (1) out of forty-five (45) tenants made a 
          complaint relevant to one (1) of the installations in that the 
          boiler failed to provide hot water on numerous occasions especially 
          in the Spring of 1991 when the building was without hot water for 
          two (2) weeks.

          On August 7, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installations qualified as MCIs, 
          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 
          controlled and rent stabilized tenants.


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GI610007RT

          In this petition, the tenants contend, in substance, that several 
          of the newly installed windows are dysfunctional; that the heat and 
          hot water services are inconsistent; that the owner is failing to 
          maintain services; and that if the DHCR had inspected the premises 
          prior to approving the application, it would have been denied, in 
          all probability.

          In response to the tenants' petition, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that the tenants have not raised any issues which merit 
          the reversal or modification of the order herein; that the building 
          has been properly maintained since the new management took over; 
          that, "as far as they are concerned," all the apartment windows are 
          in good working order; that new return lines are undergoing 
          replacement as of September 30, 1992, in order to alleviate any hot 
          water complaints; and that the apartments are serviced on an as 
          needed basis.

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

          Regarding the allegation concerning dysfunctional apartment 
          windows, the issue is not within the scope of the Commissioner's 
          review since it has been raised for the first time on appeal 
          pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

          However, concerning the petitioners' contentions involving the 
          owner's failure to maintain services and provide adequate heat 
          and/or hot water, although this failure, whether related or 
          unrelated to the MCIs herein, could have prevented a grant of the 
          MCI application, such failure is generally best evidenced by a 
          prior DHCR determination (an order finding a reduction services 
          which have not been restored) pursuant to Section 2522.4(a)(13).  
          No such showing has been made in the instant case as there are no 
          apartment service complaints, no building-wide service reduction 
          orders in effect or pending and no heat and/or hot water complaints 
          of record.  Furthermore, an inspection of the premises conducted on 
          July 27, 1993, revealed that the building is adequately supplied 
          with hot water.  Therefore, the Rent Administrator acted properly 
          in granting the MCI rent increase based on the record.

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the right of 
          the tenants to file apartment service complaints with the DHCR 
          which may result in reductions from the current rents if the facts 
          so warrant, as in the case of the tenant in apartment B.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GI610007RT

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,  
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 


                                               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