STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.:
VARIOUS TENANTS OF 377 MONTGOMERY HF210017RT/HF210018RT/
STREET, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK HF210030RT/HF210031RT/
PETITIONERS : HF210032RT/HF210033RT/
DOCKET NO.: FA2101110M
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner-tenants timely filed and/or refiled
administrative appeals against an order issued on April 29, 1993 by the
Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York) concerning
the housing accommodations known as 377 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, New
York, various apartments, wherein the Administrator granted major capital
improvement (MCI) rent increases for the stabilized apartments in the
subject premises based on an elevator upgrading and the installation of a
new intercom system and a new compactor.
In their petitions the tenants contend, in substance, that the elevator was
not upgraded and that the elevator, compactor and intercom system are not
working properly. Various tenants raise complaints regarding services
which are unrelated to the subject installations.
In reply to the petitions the owner asserts, in substance, that it has
complied with all requirements to qualify for MCI rent increases; that the
intercom is in good working order; and that the tenants must file service
complaints regarding the compactor and the elevator since the owner
received governmental approvals for those installations.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that these
petitions should be denied.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: HF210013RT etal.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by Section
2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized apartments.
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 record indicates that thirty of the petitioner-tenants in
occupancy of the following apartments were served by the Administrator with
notice of the instant application and failed to respond thereto: A2, A5,
A6, A7, A11, A14, A16, B2, B4, B5, B6, B7, B15, B16, C2, C5, C6, C15, C17,
D3, D6, D7, D10, D12, E1, E4, E15, F6, F7, F15. Accordingly, pursuant to
Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code, these tenants' allegations
may not be considered now when offered for the first time on administrative
With respect to the remaining six petitioner-tenants, residing in
apartments C7, D5, D11, E6, E12 and F11, the record reveals that these six
tenants were among the 14 tenants (out of a total of 98) who raised
objections to the quality or adequacy of the subject installations while
this proceeding was before the Rent Administrator. The owner was served
with copies of several of the objections and, in response, submitted copies
of statements from each of the contractors indicating that the elevator was
maintained and serviced monthly; that the compactor was examined and found
to be in proper operating condition; and that the intercom system was
inspected, repairs were made thereto and said service was restored. Copies
of the owner's response were served on several of the objecting tenants,
none of whom submitted a reply thereto.
The record discloses that the owner substantiated its application in the
proceeding below by submitting to the Administrator documentation in
support thereof, including copies of proposals for the improvements,
contractors' certifications and cancelled checks, together with all
requisite governmental approvals.
Furthermore, the owner submitted information indicating that the tenants'
objections were investigated and appropriate corrective action was taken
where necessary; and several tenants served with copies thereof failed to
rebut said information. The tenants have not submitted any evidence,
either in the proceeding before the Administrator or on appeal, to support
any of their allegations and have not established that the rent increase
should be revoked.
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the tenants' right to
file an appropriate application for a rent reduction based on a decrease in
building-wide or individual apartment services, if the facts so warrant.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: HF210013RT etal.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law
and Code, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied, and that
the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA