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 NOS.: GG410127RT
APPEALS OF GG410128RT
GG410188RT
Various Tenants of 461 Central Park GG410250RT
West, New York, New York
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONERS DOCKET NO.: EE410047OM
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner-tenants timely filed petitions for
administrative review against an order issued on June 29, 1992, by
the Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York)
concerning the housing accommodations known as 461 Central Park
West, New York, New York, various apartments, wherein the
Administrator granted a major capital improvement (MCI) rent
increase for the stabilized apartments in the subject premises
based on the installation of an intercom.
In these petitions, the tenants state, in substance, that the
intercom was installed in the same location as the previous
intercom and is therefore a replacement of a previous non-working
installation; the intercom is a building security device to be
maintained by the owner which has been included in their monthly
rent from the beginning of their lease; the former intercom had not
properly functioned since they moved into the building several
years ago; the owner did not make any attempt to repair or maintain
the intercom for almost eight and a half years; the problem was
brought to the attention of the owner on numerous occasions,
including a Court Order issued on July 5, 1983 requiring the owner
to repair the intercom; the owner did not take any action to repair
or maintain the intercom until February 28 - March 1, 1990 when the
replacement intercom was installed; according to the owner's MCI
application, the total number of rooms in the building is 212, but
the number of rooms listed on the order is 192.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: GG410127RT et. al.
In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner states, in
substance, that the tenants' allegations are insufficient to obtain
reversal of the MCI order; that the intercom installation qualifies
as an MCI; that the owner consistently complies with court orders;
and that at the time the application for an MCI rent increase was
made, half rooms were included, but DHCR directed that the room
count exclude half rooms, and hence the MCI order correctly recites
192 as the room count.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that these administrative appeals
should be denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized
apartments. 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 record in the instant case indicates that the owner correctly
complied with the application procedures for an MCI, and the Rent
Administrator properly computed the appropriate rent increase. The
owner substantiated its application in the proceeding below by
submitting copies of the contract, the contractor's certification
and cancelled checks for the work in question. On the other hand,
the tenants have not established that the increase should be
revoked.
The tenants' argument that the owner is not entitled to a rent
increase because he neglected to maintain the old intercom is
untenable. Moreover, it is the well established position of the
Division, and the courts have so held, that the fact that certain
work remedies building violations or complies with an
administrative or court order does not constitute grounds for the
denial of the application. The Commissioner finds that the work in
question meets the criteria for an MCI as stated in Section
2522.4(a)(2)(i) of the Rent Stabilization Code. The fact that the
old intercom needed to be replaced (which the tenants concede)
underscores the appropriateness of this installation.
With regard to the petitioners' question of the amended room count,
the Commissioner notes that the owner listed on its MCI application
a room count of 212. This room cou t mistakenly included half-
rooms. Pursuant to a DHCR request, the owner correctly amended the
room count to 192 by excluding half-rooms.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: GG410127RT et. al.
Any adverse determination stemming from a miscount in rooms which
arises after the MCI order is issued becomes the responsibility of
the owner. The determination herein is without prejudice to the
right of the tenants herein to file individual complaints of rent
overcharge with this Division, if the facts so warrant.
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 these administrative appeals be, and the same hereby
are, denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
-------------------------------
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
