OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          -------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF
                    MICHELE MANGES
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  EC130180OM



          On March 5, 1992, the above-named petitioner-tenant timely filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on 
          February 14, 1992, by the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 42-09 47th Avenue, 
          Apt. 6E, Sunnyside, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator 
          determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on 
          the installation of a major capital improvement (MCI).

          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 March 27, 1990, by initially 
          filing an application for a rent increase predicated on the 
          installation of a new intercom system and new apartment and hallway 
          windows, at the subject premises, at a total claimed cost of 
          $89,455.00.  In support of its application, the owner submitted 
          copies of the contracts and cancelled checks.

          On July 17, 1990 the Tenants' Association submitted a response 
          disputing the owner's claim and requesting an extension of time in 
          which to prepare an answer.  However, at the time of processing, 
          February 11, 1992, no further response was received from the 
          Association.  The tenants, therefore, failed to raise any pertinent 
          objection to the installation.

          On February 14, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review, finding that the installations of a new intercom 
          system and new apartment and hallway windows qualified as Major 
          Capital Improvements, determining that the application 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 
          an approved cost of $89,455.00.

In her petition for administrative review, the tenant requests 
reversal of the Administrator's order and contends, in substance, 
that the major capital improvements were made and the rent 
increases applied for before she moved into her apartment on 

          February 1, 1991; and that her vacancy lease did not state the 
          pending MCI and list the items for which the MCI rent increase was 

          In answer to the tenant's petition, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that the tenant brought forth no reason for the final 
          order to be revised or modified in any way; and that the said 
          tenant is not being charged an increase for the major capital 
          improvements in question.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized 
          apartments.  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 Commissioner notes that the replacement of an intercom system 
          and apartment and hallway 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 
          substantiated his application by submitting copies of the contracts 
          and cancelled checks.  The record confirms that the owner correctly 
          complied with the applicable procedures for a major capital 
          improvement rent increase.

          The Commissioner notes that where the tenant took occupancy of the 
          apartment pursuant to a vacancy lease commencing after the owner 
          had filed its application, as is the case in the instant 
          proceeding, for the MCI increase, granted by the Rent 
          Administrator's order, to be collectible during the term of the 
          tenant's vacancy lease, such vacancy lease would have to contain a 
          specific clause advising the tenant of the pending proceeding and 
          advising that the rent charged was subject to an additional 
          increase (during the current lease term in effect) as provided by 
          Section 2522.4(a)(5) of the Rent Stabilization Code and established 
          Division precedent.  In the absence of same, said increase is not 
          collectible until the expiration of the lease term in effect at the 
          time of issuance of the MCI order, February 14, 1992, providing the 
          renewal lease contains a general authorization provision for 
          adjustment of the rent reserved by the DHCR order.

          The Commissioner further notes that, according to the owner, the 
          tenant has not been charged an increase for the major capital 



          This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the tenant's 
          right to file a rent overcharge complaint if the owner has 
          collected any rent increase authorized by the Rent Administrator's 
          order for any period prior to the expiration of the lease term in 
          effect, at the time the Administrator's order was issued.

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

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


                                                         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