Docket Nos. BB 410121-RO, BB 430122-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          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

          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 

          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.


                                          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