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
|
