OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF

                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: L000422OM 


          On July 3, 1987 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on June 17, 1987 by a 
          Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          158 East 61st Street, New York, New York various apartments.

          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 administrative review.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on June 26, 1986 by initially 
          filing a major capital improvement rent increase application with 
          the Administrator based on the pointing and waterproofing of the 
          front facade of the building, from top to bottom, at a total 
          claimed cost of $11,000.00.

          The owner certified that on March 24, 1986 she served each tenant 
          of record with a copy of the application and placed one copy of the 
          entire application including all required supplements and 
          supporting documentation with the resident superintendent of the 
          subject building.  No response was received from any of the 

          The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, denied the owner's 
          application for a rent increase stating that the pointing and 
          waterproofing of one of the two exposed sides of the building does 
          not constitute a major capital improvement pursuant to the Rent 
          Stabilization Code.

          On appeal, the owner alleges, in substance, that the Rent 
          Administrator incorrectly denied the claimed cost of $11,000.00 for 
          the improvement since the pointing and waterproofing of the front 
          facade of the building was the only portion of the exposed surfaces 

          Admi. Rev. Docket No. BG410100RO

          that required pointing and waterproofing pursuant to an inspection 
          by the insurance carrier, the Public Service Mutual Insurance 
          Company, and the recommendation of the contractor.  In order to 
          substantiate these claims, she submitted copies of letters to that 
          effect from both the insurance company and the contractor.  These 
          letters were also submitted with initial MCI application.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be 
          remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized 
          apartments.  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.

          It is the established position of the Division that comprehensive 
          pointing and waterproofing as necessary on exposed sides of the 
          building constitutes as major capital improvement for which a rent 
          increase adjustment may be warranted.  A review of the record in 
          the proceeding below discloses that the contractor submitted a 
          signed statement stating that he examined all of the exposed sides 
          of the building and indicating which of the exposed sides of the 
          building was found to need pointing and waterproofing.  A diagram 
          submitted by the owner, indicating the location of the work 
          preformed, shows that the entire front of the building was pointed 
          and waterproofed.  The owner has, therefore, 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 deny the increase simply because only 
          one of the two exposed sides of the building was pointed and water 

          The Commissioner notes that no service complaints for leaks for the 
          said address were pending during the time the owner's application 
          was being processed.  Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the 
          opinion that this proceeding must be remanded for such further 
          processing as may be deemed necessary.

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

          Admi. Rev. Docket No. BG410100.RO

          ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is, remanded 
          the Rent Administrator for further processing in accordance with 
          this order and opinion.  The administrator's order remains in full 
          force and effect until a new order is issued on the remand.


                                                    JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                    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