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
|
