ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BH 130275 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. BH 130275 RO
:
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO. AA 100031 OM
NADA WAGNER
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 27, 1987, the above-named petitioner owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued July
31, 1987 by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New
York, concerning the housing accommodations known as various
apartments at 1821 Woodbine Street, Ridgewood, New York, wherein
the Administrator granted in part, the application of the owner to
increase the rentals based on installation of Major Capital
Improvements.
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 20,
1985, by filing an application to increase the rentals for rent
controlled and stabilized apartments based on the installation of
Major Capital Improvements consisting of new roof, replacing the
concrete sidewalk in front of the building and painting the
building's fire escapes and waterproofing the rear wall of the
building. The owner claimed costs of $1,450.00 for the
installation of a new roof, $1,050.00 for replacing the concrete
sidewalk in front of the building and $2,300.00 for painting the
building's fire escapes and waterproofing the rear wall of the
building. In the application the owner indicated that the
building contains 6 apartments.
None of the tenants responded to the owner's application.
In the Administrator's order the owner's application was
granted as to the full stated cost for the new roof and denied as
to all other items.
In the Petition, the owner alleges that when the owner
purchased the building it was in very poor condition and "All
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BH 130275 RO
installations had to be done new." The sidewalk in front of the
building was dangerous and had to be completely replaced. The
waterproofing was necessary. The building is attached on two
sides so only two sides could be waterproofed. The fire escapes
needed to be totally replaced as there were violations pending but
the City would not help finance their replacement.
Although afforded the opportunity, none of the tenants filed
an answer to the Petition.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the Petition should
be denied.
The Commissioner finds that in the absence of the owner's
proving that the sidewalk in front of its building was (contrary
to the usual circumstances in the City of New York) within the
bounds of the parcel of land the owner holds title to, the
Administrator correctly denied the application as to the cost of
the sidewalk. As something the owner did not own, the new
sidewalk could not qualify for a Major Capital Improvement rent
increase.
The Commissioner finds that the application below reads "Back
wall waterproofed;" and there is no indication in the record that
any work other than waterproofing was done. It has been well
settled by Division policy and precedent that waterproofing does
not constitute a Major Capital Improvement. The cost of
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. Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the
Administrator properly denied the application below as to
waterproofing.
The Commissioner notes that the application herein was not
ambiguous as to the fire escape work. It stated that they were
painted, not replaced. The Commissioner notes that, as to
painting, a clear chain of precedent directs that a Major Capital
Improvement increase cannot be granted as to such work.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the City Rent Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it
is
ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BH 130275 RO
|