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.: GH630218RT;
APPEALS OF GJ610084RT;
GJ610220RT;
VARIOUS TENANTS OF GJ630219RT
2965 E. 196TH STREET
BRONX, NY RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NOS.: EK630054OM;
FJ630081OM
PETITIONERS
-------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above named petitioner-tenants timely filed petitions for
administrative review (PARs) against orders issued on September 25,
1992, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing
accommodations known as 2965 E. 196th Street, Bronx, NY, various
apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the
owner was entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of
major capital improvements (MCIs).
The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these
petitions for disposition since they concern orders issued with
respect to the same building and involve common issues of law and
fact.
The Commissioner has carefully considered that portion of the
record relevant to the issues raised by these administrative
appeals.
The owner commenced these proceedings on November 14, 1990,
(boiler/burner) and October 18, 1991, (new prime windows) by
initially filing applications for rent increases based on the
installation of the above mentioned items at a total cost of
$117,520.00 ($65,520-apartment windows and $52,000-boiler/burner).
One (1) tenant responded to notice of the application filed with
respect to windows (FJ630081OM) and six (6) tenants responded to
the application with respect to the new boiler/burner (EK630054OM).
While arguing the denial of said application, the tenants did not
question the extent or quality of the installations albeit one
tenant noted that on one day heat and hot water had been turned off
while another tenant acknowledged that since the new installation,
adequate heat was being provided.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GJ-610084-RT
On September 25, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued both orders
here under review finding that the installations qualified as MCIs,
determining that the applications complied with the relevant laws
and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted
by the owner, and allowing rent increases for rent controlled and
rent stabilized tenants.
In these petitions, various tenants contend, among other things,
that both MCIs were improper in that the heat and hot water are
inadequate and the windows are defective as well as drafty; that
the room count is incorrect; and that the building services are
poor.
In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner contends, among
other things, that these petitions should be denied because the
tenants failed to respond below; that many of the accusations are
false; that building department records can verify that the correct
room count is 152; and that the tenants' objection to the payment
of arrears relates to their claim that they were often without heat
with the old heating system (over 60 years old), which was why it
was replaced.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of 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 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.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that both of
the instant applications were sent to the tenants' by the DHCR and
in fact various tenants responded thereto. Since the tenants'
failed to raise any relevant objections with regard to the manner
and quality of the window and heating installations in the
proceeding below, said objections may not be considered for the
first time on appeal in accordance with established precedent and
Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code. The same
principle applies to the question of room count which could readily
have been challenged while the proceeding was pending before the
Administrator.
2
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GJ-610084-RT
The Commissioner notes from a review of Division records that there
were no heat and hot water complaints pending before the Division
or any rent reduction orders outstanding against the subject
premises based on the owner's failure to maintain services at the
time the Administrator's order was issued. However, the
determination herein and the collectibility of the rent increases
in question may be effected by such decision as rendered in
connection with a proceeding currently pending before the Division
under Docket No. EH630103B.
Based upon the entire evidence of record, the Commissioner finds
that the Administrator's orders are correct and should be affirmed.
The Commissioner further notes that this order and opinion is
issued without prejudice to the right of the tenants to file
apartment services complaints with the DHCR which may result in
reductions from the current rents, if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied,
and that the Administrator's orders be, and the same hereby are,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
____________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
3
|
