DOCKET NUMBER: ARL 10226-Q
                                 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 10226-Q
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: QCS 00175-OM

     ALICIA SAMANIEGO      PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

          ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On  April  19,  1986,  the  above-named  owner  refiled  a  petition   for
     administrative review of an order issued on March 19, 1986 by  a  District
     Rent Administrator concerning the housing  accommodation  known  as  41-11
     53rd Street, Woodside, New York, wherein the District  Rent  Administrator
     determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based  upon  the
     major capital improvements (hereafter MCI) of a  new  roof,  waterproofing
     and intercom system.  The Rent Administrator further determined  that  the
     installation of new mail boxes, a front door grill, the  repair  of  front
     steps and sidewalk and insulation of the roof did not constitute MCI's and 
     no rent increases were warranted for such installation.

     The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record  and  has
     carefully considered that portion of the record  relevant  to  the  issues
     raised by the petition for review.

     The owner, commenced this proceeding in November 1984  by  completing  the
     filing an  application  for  a  rent  increase  based  on   the  following
     improvements: new roof,  insulation  of  roof,  waterproofing,  repair  of
     sidewalk and front steps, new intercom system,  new  mailboxes  and  metal
     grill for front door at a total cost of $9230.11.

     In Order Number QCS 000175-OM the District Rent  Administrator  determined
     that the installation of a new roof, waterproofing, and the  new  intercom
     system qualified as MCI's, that the roof insulation did not qualify as  an
     MCI because it was done a year prior to the installation of the new  roof,
     that the installation of the new mail boxes did  not  qualify  as  an  MCI
     because they were installed in the same place as the old  mail  boxes  and
     that the repair of the front steps and sidewalk and new  metal  grill  for
     the front door did not qualify as MCI's.

     In  this  petition  for  administrative  review,  the  owner  contends  in
     substance that MCI rent increases for the disqualified items are warranted 
     in that the roof insulation was done for heat preservation  by  the  order
     of Brooklyn Union Gas at the time of a  new  boiler  installation  in  the
     subject premises, that the sidewalk and front steps were beyond repair and 
     were completely replaced and that the new mail boxes were installed  in  a
     different place than the old mail boxes.  In support of  here  contentions
     the owner submitted pictures of the new front steps and  pictures  of  the
     old and new mailboxes.

     After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion  that  this
     petition should be remanded to the Rent Administrator.






          DOCKET NUMBER: ARL 10226-Q


     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  Law  for  rent  stabilized
     apartments. Under rent control, an increase is warranted where  there  has
     ben since July 1, 1970  a  major  capital  improvement  required  for  the
     operation,  preservation,  or  maintenance  of  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.

     Concerning the  resurfacing  of  the  sidewalk,  this  work  was  properly
     disallowed since it does not qualify as an  MCI  under  the  present  Rent
     Stabilization  Code.   Similarly  the  repair  of  the  front  steps   and
     replacement of the  front  door  grill  constitutes  ordinary  repair  and
     maintenance work and does not qualify as MCI's.

     With regard to the roof insulation it is noted that this work was done  in
     February 1983 and that the new roof was not  installed  until  April  1984
     over a year later.  Due to the time lapse the insulation  work  cannot  be
     said to have been done in connection with the new roof and insulation of a 
     roof without the installation of anew roof does not qualify as an MCI.

     Finally with regard to the mailbox installation, this item was  apparently
     disallowed because the new mailboxes were thought to have  been  installed
     in the same place as the old  mail  boxes  and  the  owner  has  submitted
     evidence on appeal tending to show that the new  mailboxes  were  in  fact
     installed in a  different  location.   Accordingly  this  item  should  be
     reexamined and MCI rent increase allowed for the mailbox  installation  if
     it is found to be warranted.

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

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  granted  to  the
     extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator for  further
     processing in accordance with this order and opinion.  The  order  of  the
     Rent Administrator remains in full force and effect  until a new order  is
     issued upon remand.

     ISSUED:



                                                                   
                                           ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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