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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NO.: BI130088RO
          APPEAL OF

                   Martin J. Weiss,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO:AD130047OM
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On September 25, 1987, the above-named owner filed a petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued on September 4, 1987 by a 
          Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          various apartments, 93-40 Queens Boulevard, Rego Park, New York.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all 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 by the filing of an application 
          with the Division on June 27, 1986 requesting a Major Capital 
          Improvement (MCI) rent increase based on the installation of 
          pointing and waterproofing where necessary, completed in January 
          1986.

          Several tenants responded to the owner's application, of 
          pertinence, the tenant of apartment 3-F complained that despite 
          attempts made to fix the problem from inside the apartment, there 
          was a leak in her bedroom which she attributed to needed  pointing 
          and waterproofing on the outside walls adjacent thereto.  The 
          tenant of apartment 1-D asserted that only the parapet was pointed.

          On September 4, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order 
          herein appealed denying the owner's MCI application.  The 
          Administrator's denial was predicated on the fact that the entire 
          building was not pointed and waterproofed.

          In his petition the owner asserts, in substance, that the pointing 
          and waterproofing installation was completed only to the front of 
          the subject building per the contractor's assessment that no work 
          was required elsewhere; that this installation is deemed 

          Adm. Rev. Docket No. BI130088RT














          depreciable under the Internal Revenue Code; is structural in 
          nature; constitutes an improvement to the building; was required 
          for the preservation of the structure and therefore qualifies as an 
          MCI for which appropriate rent increases should be granted.

          In response to the owner's petition, several tenants make 
          assertions which are not relevant to the order appealed herein.  
          However, the tenant of apartment 1-D reiterates that only the 
          parapet was pointed; and the tenant of apartment 1-G asserts that 
          the installation is in the nature of an ordinary repairs.


          After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

          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 
          Code for rent stabilized apartments.  Under rent control, an 
          increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970 a 
          major capital improvement required for the operation, preservation, 
          or maintenance of the structure.  Under rent stabilization, the 
          improvement must be generally 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.


          While it is the established position of the Division that 
          comprehensive pointing and waterproofing constitutes an MCI for 
          which a rent increase may be warranted, provided that the owner 
          satisfies the Division's requirement that the contractor certify 
          that the building was inspected and that the work was performed in 
          a comprehensive fashion where necessary on the exposed sides of the  
          building.  The work performed must , for example, be greater than 
          mere spot patching to repair current leaks or damaged spots so as 
          to be in the nature of an improvement or betterment of the 
          structure.

          To qualify for an MCI rent increase, such work must be performed in 
          such a workmanlike manner that the tenants may enjoy the benefit 
          thereof.  In this respect the record reveals that the within 
          pointing/waterproofing installation was not comprehensive enough to 
          meet the agency definitional requirements of an MCI as agency 
          records disclosed that the owner was granted a rent increase (under 




          Adm. Rev. Docket No. BI130088RT


          Docket No.  FG130012OM) based on an essentially duplicative 






          pointing/waterproofing installation completed May 1990.  Therefore, 
          the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly denied a 
          rent increase adjustment for the pointing/waterproofing 
          installation completed January 7, 1986.

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

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

          ISSUED:











                                                                           
                                                     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