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 
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: GA 230111-RT
                                              :  
             SUSAN MAY WEST et.al.               RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: DI 230136-OM
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On January 17, 1992, the above named petitioner-tenant timely 
          refiled a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order 
          issued on October 11, 1991, by a Rent Administrator concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 2126 Benson Avenue, Brooklyn, 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 (MCIs).

          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 September 19, 1989, by 
          filing an application for a rent increase based on the installation 
          of the following MCIs at a total cost of $88,925.00: apartment and 
          hall windows.

          Of the four (4) responses submitted in reference to the 
          application, the Rent Administrator found one (1) issue relevant to 
          the proceeding below which was addressed by requesting that the 
          owner check the room count disputed by the tenant and submit the 
          correct information to the DHCR.

          The owner responded to the Rent Administrator by submitting the 
          correct room count which was used in the calculation of the order 
          herein. 

          On October 11, 1991, 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.

          In this petition, the tenants contend, among other things, that 
          they believe that the owner is entitled to recoupment by law; that 
          they cannot believe that he is entitled to recoupment above his 
          initial costs; and that they find a permanent rent increase to be 
          unfair because they are already economically stressed.







          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA 230111-RT




          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that this petition 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 no issues 
          have been raised in objection to the MCI installations herein.  The 
          petitioner et.al. merely contest paying the rent increase on a 
          permanent basis.  Nonetheless, pursuant to an MCI processing 
          directive effective July 22, 1990, the amortization period for MCIs 
          which were commenced, to some degree, before June 29, 1990, as in 
          the instant case, shall remain five (5) years or sixty (60) months.  
          Such increase is payable on a permanent basis pursuant to a Court 
          of Appeals decision upholding same.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

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

          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