DOC. NO.: AI 210062-RT
                                  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
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO. AI 210062-RT
                                                  D.R.O. DOC. NO.
               MAXINE DAVIS,                  :               K 000462-OM
                                  PETITIONER  :    
          ------------------------------------X


                   ORDER AND OPINION DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

          On September 29, 1986, the above-named tenant-representative filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued August 
          26, 1986, by a Rent Administrator, concerning various apartments at 
          1633-1647 Sterling Place, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the 
          Administrator granted in part the application of the owner to 
          increase the rentals based on installation of major capital 
          improvements.

          The issue on appeal is whether the Administrator's order was 
          warranted.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to 
          the issues raised in the administrative appeal.

          The owner commenced the proceeding in May 1985 by filing an 
          application to increase the rentals for rent controlled and rent 
          stabilized apartments based on the installation of major capital 
          improvements consisting of a new burner and complete rewiring of 
          the 70-apartment building.  The owner claimed costs of $52,250.00 
          for the rewiring and $18,800.00 for the new oil/gas burner.

          In response to the owner's application, nineteen tenants filed 
          answers contending, in substance, that the work done constituted 
          ordinary repairs and not improvements, and that the electrical 
          outlets were inconveniently-placed and unnecessary.  Two tenants 
          specifically complained that at times they still had insufficient 
          heat or hot water; one alleged that the new boiler wasn't heating 
          any better than the original one.



















          DOC. NO.: AI  210062-RT


          On September 26, 1986, the Administrator issued the order under 
          review, finding that the installations qualified as major capital 
          improvements, and determined that the owner's application 
          complied with relevant laws and regulations based upon the 
          supporting documentation and requisite governmental approvals 
          submitted by the owner, and allowed appropriate rent increases 
          for the rent-controlled and rent-stabilized tenants.

          In this petition, the tenant-representative contends that the 
          replacement of the boiler constituted ordinary maintenance, that  
          the new boiler does not function properly, and that the wiring 
          was unnecessary and did not constitute a "rewiring" as approved 
          by the Division.  The petitioner also asserts that the tenants 
          should receive a reduction in rent for the owner's failure to 
          provide proper services and maintenance for the building.

          The owner responded, in substance, that the Administrator 
          properly allowed the major capital improvement rent increases, 
          and that he is collecting the correct rent allowed.

          The Commissioner finds that the petition should be denied.

          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code provides, in 
          pertinent part, that an owner qualifies for a rent increase when 
          there has been a building-wide major capital improvement.  For an 
          item to constitute a major capital improvement, it must be deemed 
          depreciable under the Internal Revenue Code, must be done for the 
          operation, preservation and maintenance of the structure, and be 
          an improvement to the premises which inures directly or 
          indirectly to the benefit of all tenants.  Regarding the tenant's 
          assertion that the boiler constituted ordinary maintenance, the 
          Division of Housing and Community Renewal and its predecessor 
          agencies have consistently held that new boilers qualify as major 
          capital improvements.

          Adequate rewiring is sufficient if the work results in the 
          installation of new copper risers and feeders extending from the 
          property box in the basement to every housing accommodation; it 
          must be of sufficient capacity to accommodate the installation of 
          air conditioner circuits in living room and/or bedroom.  The 
          Commissioner finds that the wiring approved by the Administrator 
          as a major capital improvement meets these requirements, and that 
          the petitioner's contentions are not sufficient to disturb the 
          decision of the Administrator.











          DOC. NO.: AI  210062-RT
          A review of the record discloses that the owner substantiated its 
          MCI application with the requisite documentation, including 
          specifications, copies of contracts, governmental inspections, 
          and cancelled checks for the work herein.

          This order is issued without prejudice to the filing by the 
          tenants of complaint of reduced services with the Division, 
          should the facts so warrant.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the 
          Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is, 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