OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                           

                  LAVENUS BROWN    
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO.: DH230189OM

          On January 3, 1992 the above-named petitioner-tenant timely filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued 
          on December 6, 1991 by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 1517 Park Place, 
          Apartment 14R, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator 
          determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on 
          various 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 the petition for administrative review.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on August 28, 1989 by initially 
          filing an application for a major capital improvement rent increase 
          predicated on the installation of the following items:

                    ITEMS                           CLAIMED COST

          1. Boiler/burner                         $ 45,000.00
          2. Apartment Windows                     $ 42,720.00
          3. New Roof                              $  7,000.00
          4. Intercom                              $  4,000.00
          5. Mail Boxes                            $  1,600.00
          6. Doors                                 $  7,300.00
             CLAIMED COST                          $107,620.00
          In support of his application, the owner submitted copies of 
          permits, contracts, approvals and cancelled checks.

          In response to the owner's application, two tenants filed answers 

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA210013.RT

          objecting to the rent increase.  The tenants listed numerous 
          service complaints within their apartments but failed to identify 
          any pertinent reason why the request for a rent increase, based on 
          the subject installations, should not be granted.  

          On December 6, 1991 the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installations of apartment windows, 
          boiler/burner, roof, intercom and doors qualified as major capital 
          improvements, determining that the application, as it relates to 
          such items, complied with the relevant laws and regulations based 
          upon the supporting documentation submitted by the owner and 
          allowing rent increases for both rent controlled and rent 
          stabilized apartments based upon the total approved cost of 
          $106,020.00.  Disallowed, by the Rent Administrator, was the sum of 
          $1,600.00 for mail boxes that were installed in the same location 
          since such installation did not qualify as a major capital 
          improvement.  The owner was, however, directed by the Rent 
          Administrator to file an application to restore the rents 
          previously reduced by a building-wide rent reduction order that was 
          in effect (Docket No. BI210005B). Said building-wide rent reduction 
          order was based on service decreases involving the intercom system 
          and the entrance and vestibule  doors. It was presumed that such 
          service problems had been adequately addressed by the installations 
          involved herein.  The Rent Administrator's MCI order was issued 
          conditionally on the owner's filing of the application to restore 

          In his petition for administrative review, the tenant requests 
          reversal of the Administrator's order and contends, in substance, 
          that among other service complaints, the intercom does not work; 
          that doors have not been installed in all apartments; that the new 
          doors were not properly installed; that there are no locks on the 
          entrance doors and that the ceilings in the hallways need to be 

          A copy of the tenant's petition, mailed to the owner on March 12, 
          1992 failed to elicit any response.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be 
          remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.  Under rent 


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA210013RT

          stabilization, the improvement must generally be building-wide; 
          depreciable under the Internal Revenue Code, other than for 
          ordinary repairs; be required for the operation, preservation, and 
          maintenance of the structure; and replace an item whose useful life 
          has expired.

          With respect to the tenant's allegations that the owner is not 
          maintaining services, it is the established policy of the DHCR, as 
          reflected in Policy Statement 90-8, that "where there is a DHCR 
          order in effect determining a failure to maintain a building-wide 
          service which resulted in a rent reduction", such order will 
          constitute a bar to obtaining a major capital improvement rent 
          increase.  The subsequent restoration of rent based on a finding of 
          service restoration will result in the prospective elimination of 
          this sanction.    

          The Commissioner notes that the building-wide replacement of 
          apartment windows and the installation of a boiler/burner, roof, 
          intercom and doors qualify as major capital improvements for which 
          an increase may be warranted, providing the owner otherwise so 
          qualifies.  The record indicates that the owner substantiated its 
          application by submitting copies of the permits, contracts, 
          approvals and cancelled checks.  However, for such work to qualify 
          for a major capital improvement rent increase, the work must be 
          performed in such a workmanlike manner that all tenants may enjoy 
          the benefits thereof.

          A review of the Division's records reveals that the owner has not 
          filed a rent restoration application to restore the rents reduced 
          under Docket No. BI210005B. In view of the  fact that the owner has 
          not filed an application for the restoration of rents, and 
          considering that it is alleged that service problems involving the 
          entrance doors and intercom were never adequately addressed, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion and finds that the owner has not 
          fulfilled the conditional requirements of the order and that the 
          evidence of record is not sufficient to sustain a finding that the 
          installations were performed in a workmanlike manner so as to inure 
          to the benefit of the tenants.  As such, the Commissioner finds 
          that  this proceeding should be remanded to the Administrator for 
          such further processing as may be necessary to determine if the 
          owner qualifies for a major capital improvement rent increase.  The 
          major capital improvement increase, granted under docket number 
          DH230189OM, should be suspended retroactive to the effective dates 
          in the said order. 


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA210013RT

          The owner is hereby directed to file a rent restoration application 
          for the building-wide rent reduction order (Docket No. BI210005B), 
          within ninety days of the date of issue of this order.  Any 
          increase granted for the installations involved herein  may be on 
          a prospective basis only from the first rent payment date following 
          the date the owner restores services as determined by the Division 
          providing that the owner establishes to the Division that all 
          defects have been corrected and all services are being maintained.  
          The owner's failure to comply with said directive will result in a 
          permanent revocation of the increase.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same is, granted to the 
          extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator for 
          further processing in accordance with this order and opinion.  The 
          owner is hereby directed to refund to the tenants of the rent 
          controlled apartments any excess rent collected as a result of this 
          order within thirty days from the date of issuance hereof.  With 
          respect to rent stabilized apartments, the owner shall credit any 
          excess rent collected at the rate of 20% per month, commencing the 
          first rent payment date after issuance of this order, until all 
          over payments have been refunded.


                                                     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