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 NO.:  GE510223RT
          APPEAL OF                                           

                   IRIS RUIZ
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO.:  FD510138OM 
          ------------------------------------X

              ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On May 18, 1992 the above-named petitioner-tenant timely filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on 
          April 23,1992 by the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning 
          the housing accommodation known as 85 Vermilyea Avenue, Apartment 
          12, New York, NY, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that 
          the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on 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 April 11, 1991 by initially 
          filing an application for a major capital improvement rent increase 
          based on the installation in 1990 of a new roof and the 
          installation in September 1989 of new steel doors, at the subject 
          premises, at a total claimed cost of $20,160.00.  In support of his 
          application, the owner submitted copies of contracts and cancelled 
          checks.

          In response to the owner's application, several tenants, including 
          the petitioner-tenant, filed answers objecting to the rent 
          increase.  They contended, in substance, that the tenants should 
          not be made to pay for any improvement that is done to the building 
          since it is the owner's building and the tenants already pay a high 
          rent for the little service they receive.  They also noted various 
          service problems unrelated to the subject installation.They, 
          however, failed to cite any pertinent reason why the rent increase 
          should not be granted.

          On April 23, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the subject installations qualified as 
          major capital improvements, determining that the application 

















          ADMIN.  REVIEW  DOCKET  NO.   GE510223RT



          complied with the relevant laws and regulations based upon the 
          supporting documentation submitted by the owner, and allowing 
          appropriate rent increases for both rent controlled and rent 
          stabilized apartments.

          In the Petition for Administrative Review, the petitioner-tenant 
          requests reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and contends, 
          in substance, that to the best of her information and belief the 
          said major capital improvements were made over six years ago during 
          the "Building Rehabilitation Program" by the previous owner; that 
          the prior owner filed for increases at that time; and that tenants 
          are still paying the increase that was granted for those 
          installations.

          In response to the tenant's petition, the owner filed an answer 
          stating, in substance, that the improvements that were approved 
          are not the same as the ones the tenant is referring to in her PAR; 
          that the tenant was not paying for the subject improvements before 
          and; that the tenant brings forth no reason for the Administrator's 
          order to be reversed or modified in any way.

          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.  Under rent 
          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.

          The Commissioner notes that the installation of a new roof and new 
          steel doors qualify as major capital improvements for which a rent 
          increase may be warranted.  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.

                                       
                                        
                                        2
                                        












          ADMIN.  REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GE510223RT



          A review of the Division's records discloses that no major capital 
          improvement application was ever filed, nor was any increase 
          granted, for the said installations.  In addition, all the replaced 
          items were more than twenty-five years old and the dates on the 
          contracts and cancelled checks corresponded with the dates of 
          installations on the owner's application.

          On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the 
          Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

          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 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