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






    

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