DOCKET NUMBER: ARL 10226-Q
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: ARL 10226-Q
DRO DOCKET NO.: QCS 00175-OM
ALICIA SAMANIEGO PETITIONER :
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.