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.: HG430039RT
APPEALS OF HF430268RT
HG430070RT
HG430031RT
HG430080RT
VARIOUS TENANTS OF 226 EAST HF430262RT
13TH STREET, NY, NY HG430035RT
HF430265RT
HG430046RT
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONERS DOCKET NO: DC430243OM
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above named petitioner-tenants timely filed petitions for
administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on May 28,
1993, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing
accommodations known as 226 East 13th Street, New York, New York,
various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that
the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on the installation
of major capital improvements (MCIs).
The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these
petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same order and
involve common issues of law and fact.
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 these administrative appeals.
The owner commenced this proceeding on March 23, 1989, by initially
filing an application for a rent increase based on the installation
of the following items at a total cost of $59,040.00:
a) Pointing and waterproofing;
b) New prime windows; and
c) New roof.
The tenants objected to the owner's application, alleging, in
substance, that the window MCI was not done building-wide because
Adm. Rev. Docket Nos.: HG430039RT et. al.
at least six (6) apartments did not receive new windows; that the
new windows are defective; that the cost of the new windows is
excessive; that the increase should not be permanent; that an
investigation into the violations against the premises is
requested; and that an inspection of the premises is requested in
order to verify the foregoing allegations.
On May 28, 1993, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review finding that the installations qualified as MCIs,
determining that the application complied with the relevant laws
and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted
by the owner, and allowing rent increases for rent controlled and
rent stabilized tenants.
In these petitions, the tenants contend, in substance, that the
defective windows in apartments 8 and 10 require inspection; that
the complaints of former tenants regarding the roof leaking
necessitates inspection; that the MCI computation may include
amounts for the previous installations of windows in the exempted
apartments; that the increase exceeds the annual limitations on
collection thereof for both rent controlled and rent stabilized
tenants; that the increase should not be permanent; and that the
cost of the pointing/waterproofing MCI is excessive.
In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner contends, in
substance, that the rent increase herein does not include the cost
for windows previously installed in the exempted apartments; that
the "many" tenants referred to which had complaints regarding the
quality of the window installation was actually two (2) in number;
that the complaints of the tenants in apartments 8 and 10 regarding
the quality of the window installations have been addressed; that
the owner denies that "former" tenants who can not respond hereto
made complaints regarding the roof; that the current tenants in
apartments beneath the roof have not reported any leaks; that an
inspection of the roof some years after its installation has no
value; that the cost of the pointing/waterproofing MCI is
practical; that the highest Court in the State, the Court of
Appeals, ruled in favor of DHCR by finding that MCI rent increases
should be granted/collected on a permanent basis (Ansonia Resident
Assoc. v. DHCR, NYLJ, 11/27/89, pg. 23 col. 1); that the order sets
forth the limitation for collecting increases in Part V; and that
for the above reasons the PARs should be dismissed.
In support of the owner's allegation of window repair completion in
apartments 8 and 10, it submitted letters dated August 16, 1993, to
said tenants confirming that any structural or mechanical problems
Adm. Rev. Docket Nos.: HG430039RT
with the windows therein had been resolved; and that with respect
to the roof installation, the same was true for apartments 25
through 28.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be
denied.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the Rent
Administrator properly granted the rent increase herein as the
owner provided all the necessary documentation including contracts
and cancelled checks to verify its expenditures; and that the owner
has appropriately addressed tenant allegations concerning any
alleged defects with the MCIs herein.
The Commissioner deems it appropriate to note that Section 2522.4
of the Rent Stabilization Code states, in pertinent part, that "the
collection of any increase ... shall not exceed six percent (6%) in
any year from the effective date of the order granting the increase
over the rent set forth in the schedule of gross rents (submitted
in the application), with collectibility of any dollar excess above
said sum to be spread forward in similar increments and added to
the legal regulated rent as established or set in future years,"
meaning that each portion of the increase, prospective (permanent)
and retroactive (temporary), may not exceed six percent (6%).
Thus, the maximum allowable increase for rent stabilized tenants is
actually twelve percent (12%) above the rent set forth in the
schedule of gross rents. The corresponding increase for rent
controlled tenants in fifteen percent (15%). Collection of any
increase above these limitations may be addressed by the tenants'
filing overcharge complaints with DHCR.
With respect to the tenants' contentions concerning the permanent
collection of the prospective increase, the Commissioner notes that
the permanent nature of the increase has been upheld by the Court
of Appeals of the State of New York in the Matter of Ansonia
Residents Association v. DHCR.
It is further noted that this order and opinion is issued without
prejudice to the right of the tenants to file apartment services
complaints should there be any current defects with any of the
installations herein.
Adm. Rev. Docket Nos.: HG430039RT et. al.
THEREFORE, the accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions 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
|
