Docket Nos. BB 410121-RO, BB 430122-RO
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 NOS.: BB 410121-RO
BB 430122-RO
227 MANAGEMENT CO., INC.
D.R.O. DOCKET NOS.:
ZAE 430157-OM, ZLCS 000680-OM
PETITIONER
----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On January 30, 1987, the above named petitioner-owner filed two
Petitions for Administrative Review against two orders issued on
December 26, 1986, by the District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union
Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning housing accommodations
known as various apartments of 227 West 15th Street, New York, New
York.
These two petitions (BB 430122-RO and BB 410121-RO) have been
consolidated as they involve common issues of law and fact.
The issue in these appeals is whether the District Rent
Administrator's orders were warranted.
The applicable sections of the law are Section 2522.4 of the Rent
Stabilization Code and Section 2202.4 of the New York City Rent
and Eviction Regulations.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issue raised by these administrative appeals.
ZLCS 000680-OM
This proceeding was commenced on June 4, 1984 by the owner's
filing of an application for a rent increase based on the
installation of a major capital improvement (MCI), to wit:
pointing/waterproofing on three sides (west, north and east) of
the subject building as needed, at a total cost of $6,000.00. The
installation was completed on November 20, 1984.
Three tenants submitted responses to the owner's application: the
tenant of apartment 6 indicated that the installation was done as
described; the tenant of apartment 5 indicated that the bricks
were pointed on three sides of the building; and the tenant of
apartment 13 stated that the work commenced in the Spring of 1985
and was completed in September of 1985.
In Docket Number ZLCS 000680-OM issued December 26, 1986, the
District Rent Administrator determined that pointing and
waterproofing, where necessary, did not constitute an MCI, and
accordingly denied the owner's application.
Docket Nos. BB 410121-RO, BB 430122-RO
Docket Number ZAE 430157-OM
This proceeding was commenced on May 21, 1986 by the owner's
filing of an application for a rent increase based on the
installation of an MCI, to wit: resurfacing and waterproofing of
the entire building facade at a total cost of $12,903.09. The
installation was completed on September 5, 1985.
None of the tenants filed responses to the owner's application.
In Docket Number ZAE 430157-OM issued December 26, 1986, the
District Rent Administrator determined that pointing and
waterproofing of the building facade, where necessary, did not
constitute an MCI, and accordingly denied the owner's application.
In these petitions, the owner contends in substance that: the
Administrator's determinations are vague and incomplete; enabling
legislation in effect at the time the masonry work was engaged
(November 1984) allowed for pointing of bricks where necessary and
resurfacing of the entire front of the building as approved MCI's;
the pointing of bricks was done because crumbling mortar was
leading to water penetration and water damage to the building
interior; the resurfacing was necessary because crumbling
sandstone posed a safety hazard to pedestrians; and the
resurfacing of the front of the building was to be done in
conjunction with the pointing of the bricks, but the jobs were
separated at the insistence of the contractor.
None of the tenants submitted answers to either petition.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that these proceedings must be
remanded for further consideration.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that three
sides of the building were pointed and waterproofed where
necessary in November of 1984, and the entire facade of the
building was resurfaced in September of 1985. Since all exposed
sides of the building were either pointed/waterproofed or
resurfaced, the Commissioner finds that these improvements do
qualify as MCI's under Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization
Code and Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator
incorrectly denied the owner's MCI applications. This proceeding
is remanded to the District Rent Administrator for the purpose of
determining the amounts, effective dates and collection schedules
of the MCI rent increases.
Docket Nos. BB 410121-RO, BB 430122-RO
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
granted to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the District
Rent Administrator for further processing in accordance with this
order and opinion. The Administrator's orders are hereby revoked.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
