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.:ARL 09586-K
                                         :  
       IMPACT DEVELOPMENT CORP.,            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
       c/o REHAB ASSOCIATES,                DOCKET NO.: KS 000871-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

                 ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
                AND REMANDING PROCEEDING FOR MINISTERIAL PROCESSING

     On July 18, 1986 the above-named petitioner-owner  filed  a  Petition  for
     Administrative Review against an order issued  on  July  9,  1986  by  the
     District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,  Jamaica,  New  York
     concerning housing accommodations known as 720  DeGraw  Street,  Brooklyn,
     New York, various apartments.

     The issue in this proceeding is whether the District Rent  Administrator's
     order was warranted.

     The applicable section of the law is Section 9 NYCRR 2522.4  of  the  Rent
     Stabilization Code.

     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 administrative appeal.

     On November 25, 1985 the owner completed the filing of an  application  to
     increase the  stabilized  rents  based  upon  major  capital  improvements
     consisting  of  a  new  intercom  system,  steam  cleaning  building-wide,
     pointing and waterproofing where  necessary,  repairing  of  lintels,  and
     painting of  window  sills.   The  owner  submitted  documentary  evidence
     showing that it  had  made  expenditures  totalling  $12,965.00  for  said
     installations.

     In answer to the application, one tenant objected to the increase.

     The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, determined  that
     the installation of a new intercom system at a cost of $1,965.00 qualified 
     as a major capital improvement, and granted the  owner  increases  in  the
     stabilized rents of the subject building.  (The  order  did  not  actually
     state the improvements which qualified for a rent increase,  but  the  new
     intercom system was  clearly  intended,  as  it  was  the  only  item  not
     disallowed, and the cost equalled the expenditure  for  the  new  intercom
     system.

     In this petition, the owner contends,  in  substance,  that  pointing  and
     waterproofing does not have to be done to every square inch of the outside 








          DOCKET NUMBER: ARL 09586-K
     walls to qualify for a rent increase as a major capital  improvement,  but
     rather only done where necessary to make the building watertight.

     In answer, one tenant asserts, in substance, that there are  various  fire
     hazards in the subject building, and that the new intercom system does not 
     function properly.  In a subsequent letter the tenant states  that  he  is
     satisfied with the work performed and that he has  no  objections  to  the
     rent increases for major capital improvements.

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that this administrative appeal  should
     be granted and the proceeding remanded to the District Rent  Administrator
     for ministerial processing.

     The evidence of record indicates that it  was  improper  to  disallow  the
     owner appropriate rent increases for pointing and waterproofing,  and  for
     steam  cleaning  performed  in  conjunction   with   such   pointing   and
     waterproofing.

     The record shows that a contractor  examined  all  exposed  sides  of  the
     building and determined that only the front and left sides of the building 
     required pointing.  A  diagram  submitted  by  the  owner  indicating  the
     location of the work performed shows that the entire front and left  sides
     of  the  building  were  pointed.   The  owner  satisfied  the  Division's
     requirement that the  work  be  performed  where  necessary  and  also  be
     comprehensive  in  nature.   It  was  therefore  improper  for  the   Rent
     Administrator to disallow the cost for pointing and waterproofing  because
     only two of the building's four sides were pointed.  In addition, the cost 
     for steam-cleaning  which  is  performed  in  conjunction  with  allowable
     pointing and waterproofing work is also considered an  allowable  expense.
     It was proper for the Rent Administrator to disallow costs of $300.00  for
     repair of lintels and $200.00 for pointing of window sills as such work is 
     considered ordinary maintenance and repair.

     In view of the foregoing, it is the opinion of the Commissioner that  this
     proceeding should be remanded to the Administrator for a recomputation  of
     the appropriate rental  adjustment  in  accordance  with  this  order  and
     opinion.

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

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  granted  to  the
     extent of remanding this proceeding to the District Rent Administrator for 
     further processing  in  accordance  with  this  order  and  opinion.   The
     previously ordered rent increase based upon a  new  intercom  system  will
     remain in full effect until, as well as after, a new order is issued.

     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