BG 230398-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.:   
                                                  BG 230398-RO             
                      RITA KARNEEB,               RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      KCS 000967-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On July 13, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a  Peti-
          tion for Administrative Review of an order  issued  on  June  10,
          1987 by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York, 
          concerning the housing accommodations  known  as  various  apart-
          ments at 115 Pacific Street,  Brooklyn,  New  York,  wherein  the
          Administrator denied the application of the owner to increase the 
          rentals based  on  installation  of  Major  Capital  Improvements
          (MCI).

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in  the  record
          and has carefully considered that portion of the record  relevant
          to the issues raised in the administrative appeal.     

          The owner commenced the proceeding below on December 16, 1985  by
          filing an application to increase the rentals for rent controlled 
          apartments based on the installation of  Major  Capital  Improve-
          ments consisting of waterproofing three sides of the building and 
          painting windows and fire escapes at a claimed cost of $20,300.00 
          and replacing existing  mailboxes  in  the  same  location  at  a
          claimed cost of $230.00.  In the application the owner  indicated
          that the building contains five (5) apartments; two (2) of  which
          are rent controlled.

          One of the two affected tenants responded to the application  and
          stated that the tenant felt that the owner should  get  some  in-
          crease, but not as much as was sought.

          In the appealed order, the Administrator denied  the  application
          on the grounds that waterproofing was not done on a building-wide 
          basis and therefore  it  did  not  qualify  as  a  Major  Capital


          Improvement; and painting work and replacing mailboxes  in  their
          original location do not qualify as Major Capital Improvements.

          In the Petition the owner asserts, in  substance,  that  the  one
          side of the building that was not waterproofed  (the  front)  had
          been inspected by the contractor and found not to be in  need  of
          waterproofing.  The owner also states that an increase should  be







          BG 230398-RO
          granted for the new mailboxes and rewiring work.

          The tenant who answered below has filed an  answer  opposing  the
          Petition.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that the  Petition  should  be
          denied.

          The Commissioner finds that the  Administrator's  denial  of  the
          owner's application was correct in terms of the result.  The fact 
          is that the long  established  precedent  is  that  waterproofing
          alone cannot be deemed a Major Capital Improvement.  The cost for 
          waterproofing has been allowed as  part  of  the  costs  used  to
          calculate an MCI increase, but that was where (unlike  here)  the
          waterproofing was  done  in  conjunction  with  a  comprehensive,
          building-wide repointing project.  In  this  case  there  was  no
          repointing.  Further, painting has never  qualified  as  a  Major
          Capital  Improvement.   The  replacement  of  mailboxes  may  not
          qualify as a Major Capital Improvement unless the location of the 
          mailboxes is changed to provide for greater security.  Here,  the
          mailboxes were merely replaced in  their  original  location  and
          therefore the work involved may not be  deemed  a  Major  Capital
          Improvement.  The Commissioner finds  no  mention  of  electrical
          work in the application below  and,  therefore,  finds  no  issue
          herein relating to "rewiring".


          THEREFORE, pursuant to  the  City  Rent  Law  and  the  Rent  and
          Eviction Regulations, it is 

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


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                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