OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
          APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.: 


          BROOKLYN, NEW YORK                     DOCKET NO.: 


          The above-named petitioner-tenants filed petitions for 
          administrative review of an order issued on September 8, 1992 by a 
          Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza), concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as various apartments, 2402 63rd Street, 
          Brooklyn, New York.

          Since these petitions involve common issues of law and  fact, they 
          have been consolidated for a uniform disposition.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the petitions for review.

          The owner of the subject premises commenced this proceeding by 
          filing a major capital  improvement (MCI) rent increase application 
          with the Administrator based on the installation of an intercom 
          (installation completed March 1988); mailboxes and entrance door 
          (installation completed July 1987); and door-lock repair, at a 
          total claimed cost of $14,330.00.

          In response to the owner's application, one tenant confirmed that 
          the items for which the owner applied for an MCI rent increase
          had been installed.

          On September 9, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued the order 
          appealed herein in which the owner's MCI application was granted in 
          part permitting a rent increase based on the intercom and entrance 
          door installations at a total cost of $11,910.00.

          In their petitions the tenants assert, in substance, that although 
          completed, the installations have since become "defective"; that 
          the intercom system is defective providing easy access to the


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: GJ210087RT ET AL.

          subject premises; and that the entrance door glass and lock are 

          In response to the petitions, the owner states, in substance, that 
          the intercom and door are not broken and work properly. The owner 
          encloses a copy of an agency order dated November 6, 1991 in which 
          the tenants' building-wide complaint of, among other things, a 
          inoperative vestibule door lock was denied based on a report of 
          agency inspection conducted on September 24, 1991 indicating, among 
          other things, that the buzzer is located at the vestibule door, 
          therefore, it is not required that the entrance door be locked, and 
          that the vestibule door lock is operative.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be 

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent 
          controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization 
          Code for rent stabilized apartments.  Under rent control, an 
          increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970 an 
          MCI  required for the operation, preservation or maintenance of the 
          structure.  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.

          At the outset the Commissioner notes, as confirmed by the record, 
          that the petitioners herein were served by the Administrator with 
          notice of the instant application and that they failed to respond 
          thereto. Fundamental principles of the administrative appeal 
          process and Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code prohibit 
          a party from raising issues on appeal which were not raised below.  
          The tenants of said apartments could have raised the very issues 
          before the Rent Administrator which they now seek to raise for the 
          first time on appeal.  Accordingly, the Commissioner is constrained 
          to foreclose consideration of these issues in this appeal 

          The Commissioner does, however, note that the evidence of record in 
          the instant case indicates that all complaints regarding the 
          installations herein were addressed appropriately in the proceeding 
          below. In this connection the Commissioner notes that physical 
          inspections were conducted by the Division in 1989, 1991 and 1993 
          in connection with rent restoration applications and tenant service 
          complaints, the reports of which disclose that the vestibule door 
          lock was operating properly in connection with the buzzer system; 


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: GH210087RT ET AL.

          that the entrance door was not reported to be defective; and that 
          no rent reduction orders based on the owner's failure to maintain 
          services of a building-wide nature were in effect as of the 
          effective date for stabilized apartments (February 1, 1989) of the 
          Administrator's order appealed herein.

          However, as provided in the Administrator's order, if a rent 
          reduction was in effect for any apartment(s) in the building due to 
          the owner's failure to provide or maintain services, any rent 
          increase affecting such apartment(s) which was granted on or after 
          the effective date of the rent reduction order, is not collectible 
          from such apartment(s) until a rent restoration order has been 
          issued, and will only be collectible from the effective date of the 
          rent restoration. The tenants, however, are obligated to pay that 
          portion of the rent increase which was effective prior to the 
          effective date of the rent reduction.

          The determination herein is without prejudice to the tenants filing 
          a complaint of rent overcharge, if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied, 
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 


                                                     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