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
|
