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



























    

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