ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BI-430113 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.: BI-430113 RO
:
DRO ORDER NO.:
ZAE-430027-OM
PERRY TOWERS ASSOC.
C/O REHAB ASSOC.,
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL IN PART AND
REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On September 18, 1987 the above-named petitioner-owner filed
an Administrative Appeal against an order issued on September 8,
1987 by the District Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza, Jamaica,
New York) concerning the housing accommodations known as 28
Perry Street, New York, New York, various apartments, wherein the
Administrator denied the owner's application for major capital
improvement (MCI) rent increases for the controlled and
stabilized apartments in the subject premises.
The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing its MCI
application with the Administrator in June of 1986. The
application was based upon the painting of the hallways and
pointing/waterproofing of the subject building. Various tenants
objected to the owner's application, some of whom stated, among
other things, that they were not aware of any
pointing/waterproofing work having been done.
The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein,
stated that the pointing and waterproofing were not performed
building-wide and that the painting constituted ordinary
maintenance.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner contends, in substance, that
the pointing and waterproofing work should not have been denied
since the contractor had examined every part of the building
surface and performed work where necessary to make the building
watertight.
In response to the owner's appeal, the tenant of apartment
2-R stated, in substance, that (A) no work beyond necessary
maintenance has been done at the premises; (B) the bedroom
ceiling next to an outside wall leaks when it rains; and (C) the
hallway stairs were fixed in an unworkmanlike manner. The tenant
of apartment 1-E stated that he was not aware of any work having
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BI-430113 RO
been done.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of
record the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative
appeal should be granted in part and this proceeding remanded to
the Administrator for further processing in accordance with this
order and opinion.
A review of the record discloses that the petitioner
submitted documentation in the proceeding below indicating that
pointing work was done at the subject premises which qualified as
an MCI. This documentation included copies of the contract,
contractor's certification, invoice, cancelled checks, and the
contractor's affidavit for the pointing work. The contractor's
affidavit stated, in substance, that the contractor examined all
the exposed surfaces throughout the entire building and then
performed all work necessary to make the entire building
watertight. The contractor also stated that the work covered the
total surface area of approximately 4,150 square feet (in a
sixteen unit building) and submitted a diagram showing the
location of the work performed.
Thus, the owner submitted documentation indicating that the
pointing work was done at the subject premises where necessary,
and this proceeding should be remanded to the Administrator for
such further processing (including consideration of tenant
objections) as is necessary to determine whether the work was
done in a workmanlike manner so as to entitle the owner to an MCI
increase.
However, the record also discloses that since the
waterproofing work herein covered only 73.5 square feet in an
alleyway of the building, it did not constitute an MCI.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of
the Rent Stabilization Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations
for New York City, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that the Administrative appeal be, and the same
hereby is granted to the extent of remanding this proceeding to
the Administrator for further processing in accordance with this
order and opinion. The order and determination of the
Administrator remains in full force and effect until a new order
is issued upon remand.
ISSUED:
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BI-430113 RO
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
