STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
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
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
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
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,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA