DHCR Decisions
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: AJ 710133 RO
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.: AJ 710133 RO
: DRO DOCKET NO.:
RSV 86S-1/149 OM
S & M Development Corp.
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 3, 1986, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
September 5, 1986, by the Rent Administrator at 99 Church Street,
White Plains, NY, concerning the housing accommodation located at
30/40 South Cole Avenue, Spring Valley, New York. The
Administrator denied the owner's application for a rent increase
based on the installation of a major capital improvement.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issue raised by the petition for review.
The owner commenced this proceeding on August 1, 1986 by
filing an application for rent increase based on the installation
of major capital improvements. The owner alleged that the
Spring Valley Building Department ordered the installation of
illuminated exit signs and had issued a violation for failure to
comply with the building code.
The owner installed the illuminated signs and, at the same
time, installed emergency lighting since electrical work was
required for both. Said installations are the basis for the
application.
The Administrator denied the application on the grounds that
the installations did not constitute an MCI.
On appeal, the owner again advances the argument that the
installations meet all the criteria for an MCI (i.e. substantial,
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: AJ 710133 RO
building-wide and depreciable under the Internal Revenue Code).
Two tenants responded to the petition. One stated that the
Administrator's order should be affirmed because the exit signs
and emergency lights were required by law and the petitioner was
required to make the improvements.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: AJ 710133 RO
After a careful consideration of the evidence in the record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
denied.
Section 2502.4(a)(2)(iii) of the Tenant Protection
Regulations authorizes the Division to grant an appropriate
adjustment in the legal regulated rent where it finds that there
has been since January 1, 1974 a major capital improvement
required for the operation, preservation or maintenance of the
structure.
The installation made in the instant case, illuminated exit
signs and emergency lighting, cannot be considered the type of
improvement required for the operation, preservation or
maintenance of the building. The fact that the work was done
pursuant to a mandate imposed by local law does not make an
installation eligible for a rent increase if it would not
otherwise be considered a major capital improvement within the
meaning of the Tenant Protection Regulations.
The Administrator was correct in ruling that the
installation of emergency lighting and exit signs, regardless of
the reason for their installation, does not qualify as an MCI.
The order appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Tenant Protection
Regulations, and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, it
is
ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is,
denied and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|