OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. BD 110476-RO
                                            DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
       FRANCIS MICALLET                     DOCKET NO. Q 000328-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 


     On  April  29,  1987,  the  above-named  owner  filed   a   petition   for
     administrative review of an order issued on April 20, 1987, by a  District
     Rent Administrator concerning various apartments  located  at  47-30  48th
     Street, Woodside,  New  York,  wherein  the  District  Rent  Administrator
     determined that the owner was entitled to an increase  based  on  a  major
     capital improvement (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 by the administrative appeal.

     The owner commenced this proceeding on  December  2,  1985  by  filing  an
     application for a rent increase based  on  a  major  capital  improvement,
     including the waterproofing of the  back  and  one  side  of  the  subject
     premises, pointing of the front of the building, installing  a  new  front
     sidewalk, and repaving of the backyard at a total cost of $6,900.00.

     The owner certified that on February 18, 1986, he served each tenant  with
     a copy of the application and placed a  copy  of  the  entire  application
     including all required supplements and supporting documentation  with  the
     resident superintendent of the subject building.

     None of the tenants of the subject premises submitted an answer.

     On April 20, 1987, the District Rent Administrator issued the  order  here
     under review, finding that the repaving of  the  backyard  was  an  M.C.I.
     However, the Administrator determined that waterproofing and pointing were 
     not building-wide improvements, and therefore,  they  were  not  M.C.I.'s.
     Also, the Administrator disallowed the installation of the front  sidewalk
     on the grounds that it was not an M.C.I.

     In the petition for administrative review,  the  owner  asserts  that  the
     waterproofing and pointing  were  done  on  three  sides  of  the  subject
     premises, and that the fourth side of the building is attached to  another
     building.  Also, the owner states that 25 feet by 10  feet  of  the  front
     sidewalk is on his property.


          DOCKET NUMBER: BD 110476-RO
     The tenants did not interpose answers to the owner's petition.

     After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the  opinion  that  the
     petition for review should be denied.

     The Commissioner notes that on November 4, 1991 the rent agency mailed  to
     the owner a letter requesting proof of ownership of the 25 feet by 10 feet 
     of the front sidewalk.  On November 13, 1991 the owner filed a copy of the 
     deed and survey of the subject premises.  The Commissioner finds that  the
     aforementioned  evidence  submitted  by  the  owner  does  not   establish
     ownership of the front sidewalk by the owner.  Expenditures  for  sidewalk
     work outside the property line are not allowed, as it does not  constitute
     an improvement to the building or to the building  complex.   Accordingly,
     that portion of the Administrator's order denying an M.C.I. rent  increase
     for work on the front sidewalk should not be disturbed.

     The Commissioner notes that pointing was done to the front of the  subject
     building, and waterproofing was done to the back and the exposed  side  of
     the subject building.

     The Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (D.H.C.R.'s)  policy  that
     was in effect at the time the work  was  done,  upon  the  filing  of  the
     application for the M.C.I. rent increase, and upon the  issuance  date  of
     the Administrator's order, required  that  pointing  be  building-wide  to
     qualify for an M.C.I rent increase, and that waterproofing a side  of  the
     building, without also pointing that same side, did  not  qualify  for  an
     M.C.I rent increase.  As only  the  front  of  the  subject  building  had
     pointing done to it, and the sides that were  waterproofed  did  not  have
     pointing done to them,  the  Commissioner  finds  that  the  pointing  and
     waterproofing do not qualify as an M.C.I.   The  Commissioner  notes  that
     this would  not  qualify  as  an  M.C.I.  even  if  this  proceeidng  were
     determined by the policy now in effect.  The present policy in such  cases
     is that in order to qualify for an M.C.I. rent increase, pointing must  be
     done wherever necessary,  and  the  owner's  assertion  of  where  it  was
     necessary must be adequately proven.  In this  proceeding,  it  is  highly
     unlikely that pointing would be necessary on only one side of the building 
     where as the owner asserts the  two  other  sides  required  waterproofing
     (Accord: BC 110110-RO).  Furthermore, present policy also precludes M.C.I. 
     rent increases  for  waterproofing  without  pointing.   Accordingly,  the
     Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrator's  order  should  be

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 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.


                                     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