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
|