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. AK 230126-RT
                                         :  
                                            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
        SUSAN COHEN,                        DOCKET NO. KCS 000575-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On  November  13,  1986  the  above-named   petitioner-tenant   filed   an
     Administrative Appeal against an order issued on October  10,  1986  by  a
     Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning 
     the housing accommodations known as 9701 Shore Road, Brooklyn,  New  York,
     Apartment 2E.

     The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to  the  provisions
     of 9 NYCRR 2202.4 and 9 NYCRR 2522.4.

     The issue herein is  whether  the  District  Rent  Administrator  properly
     determined the owner's application for a rent increase based upon  claimed
     major capital improvements (MCI).

     A review of the record indicates that on May 23, 1985, the owner filed  an
     application and supporting documentation for a rent  increase  based  upon
     elevator work, replacement windows, waterproofing, a  new  roof,  sidewalk
     repairs, basement concrete  floor,  new  doors,  diamond  plate  on  roof,
     wrought iron and mesh grills,  and  bucks  at  a  total  claimed  cost  of
     $202,746.00.  The owner later certified that he served the tenants with  a
     copy of the application on July 18, 1985.

     Several tenants responded stating, in substance, that the roof leaks; that 
     the windows do not operate properly; that elevator service is erratic  and
     that the waterproofing was not complete.

     On March 31, 1986 and April 3, 1986,  an  inspector  visited  the  subject
     premises and reported that there was no evidence of leaks from  the  roof;
     that there was no evidence that the elevator was operating  unsafely;  and
     that there was evidence that the rear exterior brick wall was waterproofed 
     and other sides pointed.

     The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, disallowed costs 
     in the amount of $17,802.00 for sidewalk repairs, basement concrete floor, 
     diamond plate on roof, wrought iron and mesh  grills  and  bucks  as  such
     installations did  not  constitute  major  capital  improvements;  further
     disallowed costs amounting to $2,500.00 for waterproofing as such costs 









          DOCKET NUMBER: AK 230126-RT
     were not included in the contract agreement; increased the rents  of  rent
     controlled apartments by $3.12 per room per month plus  $2.63  per  window
     per month, effective as of November 1, 1986 and  increased  the  rents  of
     rent-stabilized apartments by 6.98%, effective as of October 1, 1985.

     On appeal, the petitioner-tenant alleges, in substance, that  the  owner's
     application was misleading and possibly fraudulent; that the work referred 
     to in the application does not constitute MCI's, but is  mere  maintenance
     and normal repairs; that the work was very poorly done; that the owner  is
     converting the premises to  coop  ownership  and  the  work  was  done  to
     increase saleability of apartments; that the elevators have been repaired, 
     but not replaced and are still very dangerous; that the waterproofing  was
     never completely done; and that the roofing job was  never  done  properly
     and the roof has bubbly,  spongy  sections,  and  leaks  due  to  improper
     patching.

     The petitioner-tenant claimed  that  she  was  representing  the  tenant's
     association, but the administrative appeal did not contain  the  necessary
     authorizations.

     After a careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner is of 
     the opinion that the administrative appeal should be denied.

     Rent increases for major capital improvements are  authorized  by  Section
     2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent controlled apartments 
     and Section 2522.4 of the  Rent  Stabilization  Code  for  rent-stabilized
     apartments.  Under rent control, an increase is warranted where there  has
     been since July 1, 1970 a  major  capital  improvement  required  for  the
     operation, preservation, or maintenance  of  the  structure.   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.

     The record discloses that the owner substantiated its application  in  the
     proceeding below by  submitting  to  the  Administrator  documentation  in
     support of the application,  including  the  contractors'  certifications,
     copies of  contracts,  invoices,  estimates  and  cancelled  checks.   The
     tenants' assertions  regarding  the  quality  and  efficacy  of  the  work
     performed was investigated in  the  proceeding  below  and  the  resulting
     inspection revealed that there was no basis to  deny  the  application  on
     such grounds.  The work performed constitutes major  capital  improvements
     for which the Administrator properly determined the owner was entitled  to
     appropriate rent increases.

     This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to  the  right  of  any
     tenant to file a complaint of a reduction in services,  if  the  facts  so
     warrant.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions  of  the  Rent  and  Eviction
     Regulations for New York City and the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,  it
     is









          DOCKET NUMBER: AK 230126-RT
     ORDERED, that this administrative appeal  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
     denied, and that the order of the Rent  Administrator  be,  and  the  same
     hereby is, affirmed.

     ISSUED:










                                                                   
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Acting 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