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 11168-L
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: LCS 000652-OM
         PETER YU,
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                        
               
           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW        
                                         
     On May 9, 1986, the above named  petitioner-owner  filed  a  Petition  for
     Administrative Review (PAR) of an order issued  on  May  5,  1986  by  the
     District Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New  York  concerning
     the housing accommodation known as 18 Mott  Street,  New  York,  New  York
     wherein the Administrator determined the owner's major capital improvement 
     rent increase application.

     On June 6, 1987 the Commissioner rejected the owner's PAR  for  procedural
     reasons without prejudice to  the  applicant  to  refile  properly  within
     fifteen days.

     On January 24, 1990, the  Commissioner  issued  an  order  dismissing  the
     owner's PAR on the grounds that it had not been refiled timely.   However,
     in March 26, 1990, the  Commissioner  reopened  the  PAR  proceedings  for
     further processing upon a showing by the owner that the  refiled  PAR  was
     timely.

     The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's determination  was
     correct.

     The applicable Law is Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction  Regulations
     and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.  

     The District Rent Administrator's order appealed herein, in pertinent part 
     denied  major  capital  improvements  rent  increases  for  the  following
     expenditures.

          Gas burner boiler heat timer             $ 1,200.00
          Repairs of gas boiler                    $   570.00
          Iron window Guards & Railings in the
      windows of basement public hall          $ 1,720.00

     In the petition the owner suggests that the installation of the heat timer 
     and repairs of the gas boiler constituted part of the installation of  the
     new gas boiler in 1979 at a total cost of $12,070.00.  The petitioner also 
     asserts out that these items are included in the "J-51"  program  schedule
     as major capital improvements.     








          DOCKET NUMBER: ARL 11168-L

     Under rent regulations, for work to qualify as major capital  improvements
     entitling an owner to rent increases, the work performed must, among other 
     things, be an improvement to the building  which  directly  or  indirectly
     inures to the benefit of all tenants and  which  includes  the  same  work
     performed on all similar components of the building unless the  owner  can
     satisfactorily demonstrate to  the  DHCR  that  certain  of  such  similar
     components did not require the improvement. 

     However, applying the principles detailed above and, based  on  the  facts
     asserted in the owner's PAR, the Commissioner finds that the owner did not 
     establish that the installation of iron windows guards and railings in the 
     basement inured to the benefit of all tenants.  Furthermore, the owner did 
     not demonstrate to the Administrator that such installation  included  the
     same work performed in all similar components  of  the  building  or  that
     such similar components did not require improvement.  

     In addition, the costs of the  heat  timer  were  properly  disallowed  in
     accordance with the Division's standard policy not to treat such items  as
     major capital improvements but  optional  adjuncts  to  a  heating  system
     inuring only to the owner's benefit.

     Thus, the installations in question have not  been  shown  to  qualify  as
     major capital improvements.

     Lastly, the Commissioner notes that the capital improvement provisions  of
     the New York City "J-51" tax abatement program, do not have any pertinence 
     to the provisions of the  Rent  and  Eviction  Regulations  and  the  Rent
     Stabilization Code for the purpose of computing MCI rent increases.

     Concerning the cost for boiler repairs, the Commissioner notes that  costs
     incurred to restore equipment  to  operating  condition  do  not  normally
     qualify for MCI rent increases notwithstanding that there  may  have  been
     incurred coincidentally with the installation of new equipment.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Emergency Tenant Protect  Act  of  1974,
     and Chapter 403 of the Laws of 1983, as amended by Chapter 102 of the Laws 
     of 1984, it is

     ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is,  denied,  and  that
     the District  Rent  Administrator's  order  be  and  the  same  hereby  is
     affirmed.

     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