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.: GA210052RT
          APPEALS OF                                           GA210284RT 

            IRVING LAZAR & SARA JITZCHAKI
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONERS        DOCKET NO.:  EG230108OM 
          ------------------------------------X

             ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING UNDER DOCKET NUMBER 
          GA210052RT AND DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW UNDER 
          DOCKET NUMBER GA210284RT

          The above-named tenants timely filed petitions for administrative 
          review (PARs) against an order issued on January 10,1992 by the 
          Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 1620-1630 Ocean Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 
          various apartments, 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 these Administrative Appeals.  Furthermore, the 
          Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these petitions 
          for disposition since they pertain to the same order and involve 
          common issues of law and fact.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on July 19, 1990 by initially 
          filing an application for a major capital improvement rent increase 
          predicated on the installation of the following items:

                  ITEMS                            CLAIMED COST
          1. Elevator                              $ 11,000.00
          2. Elevator Cab Renovation               $  9,000.00
          3. Doors                                 $  2,370.00
          4. New Burner                            $ 21,000.00
          5. Intercom                              $  9,000.00
          6. Parapet Wall Cementing                $  6,500.00
          7. Fencing                               $  4,500.00
          8. Windows                               $115,702.00
                                                   -----------
             TOTAL CLAIMED COST                    $179,072.00
                                                   -----------
















          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: GA210052RT et al.


          In support of his application, the owner submitted copies of 
          contracts, permits, approvals and cancelled checks.

          In response to the owner's application, several tenants filed 
          answers objecting to the increase.  In substance, the tenants 
          contended that the heat and hot water were inadequate; the intercom 
          system was old and inoperable; the windows were defective; the 
          doors were broken; the burner was malfunctioning; and that the 
          elevator was in a state of disrepair.  In addition, the petitioner- 
          tenant of Apt. 2O (Docket No. GA210052RT) claimed that he lives in 
          the building at 1630 Ocean Avenue and that said building does not 
          have any elevator.  The petitioner-tenant of Apt. 2C (Docket No. 
          GA210284RT) did not submit any answer to the owner's application.

          The owner was informed of these allegations and subsequently 
          responded indicating that heat and hot water were adequately 
          provided; that the intercom repairs were done and that the 
          arrangements for the repair of the windows had been made.  

          A subsequent inspection conducted by the Division revealed that 
          heat and hot water were adequately provided and that the intercom 
          system  was operable.  However, the inspection revealed that the 
          windows in some apartments, namely 2-O, 4D, 5C, and 5L were 
          defective.

          On January 10, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the upgrading of the elevators and the 
          installation of doors, burner, intercom system and apartment 
          windows 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 approved net cost of $159,072,00 and $145,702.00 for rent 
          controlled and rent stabilized apartments respectively. Disallowed 
          by the Rent Administrator, was the total of $20,000.00 for rent 
          controlled and rent stabilized apartments since the elevator cab 
          renovation, not done in conjunction with the elevator upgrading, 
          parapet wall cementing and fencing did not qualify as major capital 
          improvements.  Disallowed also for rent stabilized apartments, was 
          the additional cost of $13,370.00 for elevator upgrading and doors 
          since the owner failed to file the application within two years 
          from the completion date of the installation.  In addition, the 
          owner was barred from collecting the rent increase for the window 

                                           2











          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: GA210052RT et al.


          installation, including all retroactivity, for apartments 2-O, 4D, 
          5C, and 5L, until all repairs had been effectuated. 

          In his petition for administrative review, under docket number 
          GA210052RT, the tenant re-iterates, in substance, that which was 
          asserted when the case was before the Rent Administrator, namely 
          that the building at 1630 Ocean Avenue has three floors and does 
          not have an elevator; that the building is poorly maintained; that 
          the fencing and cementing of the parapet wall are not considered 
          major capital improvements; that the building is infested with 
          pests; and that he has already paid increases for doors and 
          intercom in the past.

          In the petition under docket number GA210284RT, the tenant of Apt. 
          2C contends, in substance, that the intercom in said apartment has 
          never worked; that the shower is not working; and that the marble 
          panels are cracked and crumbling.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          commissioner is of the opinion that the proceeding under Docket # 
          GA210052RT should be remanded to the Rent Administrator for further 
          processing and that the petition under Docket # GA210284RT 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 a item whose useful life has expired.

          The Commissioner notes that the upgrading of an elevator and the 
          installation of doors, burner, intercom and windows qualify as 
          major capital improvements for which an increase may be warranted, 
          providing the owner otherwise so qualifies.  The record indicates 
          that the owner correctly complied with the applicable procedures 
          for a major capital improvement rent increase as to these items.

          Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code provides, in 

                                       3       

















          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.:GA210052RT et al.


          pertinent part, that the scope of administrative review is limited 
          to such facts or evidence as was before the Administrator as raised 
          in the petition unless the petitioner can establish that such 
          issues could not reasonably have been offered or raised in the 
          proceeding prior to the issuance of the Administrator's 
          determination.

          There is no indication that the tenant of Apt. 2C, under docket 
          number GA210284RT, could not have raised the issue of the defective 
          intercom before the Administrator in the proceeding below nor has 
          the petitioner submitted any explanation for her failure to do so.  
          Accordingly, the issue sought to be raised by this petition is not 
          within the scope of the Commissioner's review of this proceeding 
          and may not be considered on the merits.  This order and opinion is 
          issued without prejudice to the tenant's right to file a service 
          complaint with the Division, if the facts so warrant.

          With regard to the claim made by the tenant of Apt. 2O, under 
          docket number GA210052RT, that fencing and cementing of the parapet 
          wall are not considered major capital improvements, the 
          Commissioner notes that no increase was granted for said 
          installations.  A search of the Division's records negates the 
          tenant's claim that increases were already granted for the 
          installation of doors and intercom system.

          A physical inspection conducted on March 23, 1994 by the Division 
          supports the tenant's claim that the building at 1630 Ocean Avenue 
          is a three-storied building without any elevators.  Further, the 
          buildings at 1620 and 1630 Ocean Avenue are not connected in way 
          that would make it possible for tenants of 1630 Ocean Avenue to use 
          the elevator installed at 1620 Ocean Avenue to get to their 
          apartments.  The Commissioner, therefore, finds that it was 
          improper for the Rent Administrator to grant an increase for the 
          rent controlled tenants of 1630 Ocean Avenue for the elevator 
          installation when said building does not have an elevator and when 
          said tenants do not benefit from the installation of the elevator 
          at 1620 Ocean Avenue.  In view of the foregoing, the Commissioner 
          is of the opinion that this proceeding should be remanded for a 
          redetermination of the increase for elevator upgrading for the rent 
          controlled tenants of 1620 Ocean Avenue and to determine the refund 
          to which the rent controlled tenants of 1630 Ocean Avenue are 
          entitled.  

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 

                                          4











          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.:GA210052RT et al.



          and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is 

          ORDERED, that the petition under docket number GA210284RT be, and 
          the same hereby is, denied and the petition under docket number 
          GA210052RT be, and the same hereby is, granted to the extent of 
          remanding this proceeding to the Administrator for further 
          processing in accordance with this order and opinion.  The order 
          and determination of the Rent Administrator remains in full force 
          and effect until a new order is issued on remand.





          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