DOCKET NO.: BD 210093 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 NO.: BD 210093 RO

              Vincent Ragosta,                    D.R.O DOCKET NO.          
                                                  Z-K000396-OM           
                         
                                                          
                              PETITIONER
          -------------------------------------X
                             
                  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL 
                                          

               On April 6, 1987 the above-named petitioner-owner filed an 
          Administrative Appeal against an order issued on March 9, 1987 by 
          the District Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York) 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 2137/53 Cropsey 
          Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, various Apartments, wherein the 
          Administrator granted Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent 
          increases for the controlled and stabilized apartments in the 
          subject premises based on waterproofing of the premises.

               The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing its MCI 
          application in April of 1986.  The application was based on 
          waterproofing and roof replacement at the premises.  The owner 
          stated that he paid $14,000.00 for the waterproofing work, 
          $4,000.00 of which was in cash.  In addition, the owner stated 
          that the subject building has two types of roofs, the majority of 
          the roof (approximately 12,500 square feet) consisting of flat, 
          paper layered roof.  The rest of the roof (approximately 2,500 
          square feet) has a pitched shingle roof, and only the shingle 
          portion of the roof needed replacement.  The owner stated that 
          the flat, roof was in fair condition and did not require 
          replacement.  Furthermore, the owner's documentation disclosed 
          that the roofing contractor did not complete the work in that 
          numerous shingles were missing and the gutters, leaders, and 
          aluminum facia on the building were not replaced.

               The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, 
          disallowed MCI increases for the partial roof replacement (as not 
          constituting an MCI) and for part of the waterproofing costs (as 
          not having been properly substantiated).














          DOCKET NO.: BD 210093 RO



               On appeal, the petitioner-owner contends, in substance, that 
          (a) the waterproofing contractor was paid $10,000 in checks and 
          $4,000 in cash; (b) the allowable amount should not be reduced 
          just because there were partial cash payments; (c) the 
          Commissioner should explain why the roof MCI was denied; (d) the 
          original roofing contractor never completed the project but 
          another contractor was completing it; (E) since all work was done 
          in 1985, the effective date for the MCI increases should not be 
          June of 1986; and (f) the MCI increases for the controlled 
          apartments should be retroactive.  In support of his contentions, 
          the petitioner submitted cancelled checks and copies of contracts 
          for the waterproofing (marked paid in full for $14,000.00) and 
          roofing (old and new contracts).

               In response to the owner's petition, various tenants filed 
          answers stating, in substance, that (I) there was no reason for 
          the contractor to be paid partially in cash; (II) the 
          waterproofing work constituted repairs; (III) the work on the 
          building was not completed in 1985 but in 1986; and (IV) the 
          waterproofing work was not done in a workmanlike manner.  Some 
          tenants stated that the landlord is doing a good job and that he 
          is entitled to the increases he seeks.

               After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of 
          record the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative 
          appeal should be denied.

               At the outset, the Commissioner notes that waterproofing, 
          when not done in conjunction with pointing, does not qualify as 
          an MCI.  Thus, the Administrator should not have allowed MCI 
          increases for the waterproofing work done herein.  However, the 
          Administrator's determination cannot be disturbed absent a timely 
          Petition for Administrative Review filed by the tenants.

               With respect to the roof installation, the record in the 
          proceeding below discloses that the work involved approximately 
          16% of the total roof surface and was therefore not building- 
          wide.  Furthermore, the record below discloses that the work was 
          not completed and that it was done in an unworkmanlike manner.

               Finally, the Administrator properly set the effective date 
          for the stabilized MCI increases as June 1, 1986 (the first rent 
          payment date following thirty days after the filing of the MCI 
          application), and the effective date for the collection of MCI 
          increases for rent controlled tenants was properly set for the 
          first rent payment date following the issuance of the 
          Administrator's order.









          DOCKET NO.: BD 210093 RO

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of 
          the Rent Stabilization Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations 
          for New York City, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

               ORDERED, that the administrative appeal be, and the same 
          hereby is denied; and that the Administrator's order 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