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

    

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