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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NO.: BG210400RO
          APPEAL OF
                   
                 Eleanor Hartmann
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: ZKS000969OM
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On July 23, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner timely filed a 
          petition for administrative (PAR) review of a Rent Administrator's 
          order issued on June 18, 1987, bearing the above-referenced docket 
          number which denied, in part, the owner's application to increase 
          the rents based upon a claim that major capital improvements (MCIs) 
          were made to the building.

          In the application, concerning the premises located at 48th Street 
          Nicholas Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, the owner initially requested 
          a rent increase based upon the installation of the following items 
          at a total cost of $11,758.00.

                (a)     pointing and waterproofing;

                (b)     new concrete (basement and sidewalk);

                (c)     exterior and interior painting;

                (d)     new carpeting (hallway and stairs); and 

                (e)     new roof.

          The Rent Administrator disallowed each claimed MCI except for the 
          new roof which resulted in an approved cost of $1500.00.

          In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that, due  to 
          some clerical error, there has been a misunderstanding as to what 
          improvements were actually made to the premises; that the building 
          was painted and waterproofed on exposed sides of the building 
          (contractor statement and diagram submitted); that the concrete

















          Adm. Rev. Docket No. BG210400RO

          resurfacing was performed on the entire original area within the 
          property lines of the premises; and that she believes that she 
          should be entitled to receive an MCI rent increase for the above 
          improvements. 
           
          One tenant responded to the owner's PAR requesting that the 
          application be approved.

          After considering that portion of the record relevant to the issues 
          raised by this petition, the Commissioner finds that this petition 
          should be denied.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent 
          controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization 
          Code for rent stabilized apartments. Under rent control, an 
          increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970, a 
          major capital improvement required for the operation, preservation, 
          or maintenance of the structure. Under rent stabilization, the 
          improvement must generally be building-wide; depreciable under the 
          Internal Revenue Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required 
          for the operation, preservation, and maintenance of the structure; 
          and replace an item whose useful life has expired.

          The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the Rent 
          Administrator acted properly in denying the aforementioned items 
          for the following reasons:

          (a)  exterior and interior painting as well as new carpeting are 
               non-structural repairs considered to be cosmetic in nature 
               thereby constituting normal repairs and/or maintenance;
           
          (b)  replacement of the sidewalk, as stated in the contract, which 
               is outside the property lines, is considered to be a non- 
               depreciable expense as distinguished from the depreciable 
               expense of replacing all interior courtyards and walkways 
               which lie within the limits of the supporting lines thereby 
               constituting an MCI;

          (c)  the new concrete of the basement floor must have entirely 
               replaced the old floor. No breakdown has been submitted which 
               would allow the Commissioner to determine whether or not the 
               job was complete or piece-meal in nature; and

          (d)  the pointing and waterproofing contract discloses that no 
               pointing was done. Waterproofing in and of itself is not an 
               MCI. Under such circumstance, the replacement of lintels/angle 
               irons including the necessary brick work must be performed on 
               a building-wide basis in order to qualify as an MCI.


          Adm. Rev. Docket No. BG210400RO









          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and code, 
          and the New  York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and 
          that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.

          ISSUED:









                                                                             
                                                      JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                      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