OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF

          Joseph Gershenov
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: AD630118OM


          On December 28, 1987, the above named petitioner-owner timely 
          refiled a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order 
          issued on September 30, 1987, by a Rent Administrator concerning 
          the housing accommodations known as 2715 Webb Avenue, Bronx, New 
          York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was 
          entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of major 
          capital improvements (MCIs).

          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 this administrative appeal.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on April 14, 1986, by filing an 
          application for a rent increase based on the installation of the 
          following MCIs at a total cost of $90,270.00:

               (a) New roof;
               (b) Burner/boiler;
               (c) New Mailboxes; and
               (d) New prime windows.

          On September 30, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that certain installations qualified as MCIs 
          determining that the application complied with the relevant laws 
          and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted 
          by the owner, and allowing rent increases for rent regulated 
          tenants. Disallowed by the Administrator were costs of $1,560.00 
          associated with the mailbox replacement in same location (not an 
          MCI) and $44,880.00 for replacement windows due to a missing 
          signoff and questionable expenditures which resulted in a total 
          approved cost of $43,830.00.

          ADMIN REV. DOCKET NO. BL630323RO

          In its petition, the owner contends, in substance, that it was 
          unable to get the window contractor's signoff due to the fact that 
          the company went out of business prior to the completion of the 
          work; and that the contractor was only paid for the work it  
          completed ($44,880.00).

          In support of its petition, the owner resubmitted an affidavit 
          stating same. 

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion 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 
          Law 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 as of the 
          date of the application, the installation herein had not been 
          completed on a building-wide basis. The affidavit submitted by the 
          owner concerning the window contractor's sign off revealed that the 
          signoff was unattainable as the contractor had gone out of business 
          prior to finishing the job.  According to the $7,665.00 discrepancy 
          between the contract amount ($52,545.00) and the actual amount paid 
          ($44,880.00), at $155 per window, approximately 50 of the 339 
          windows contracted for were not replaced. Neither proof of payment 
          nor contracts for the work left undone by Associated Windows 
          Corporation has been submitted even on appeal. Thus, the 
          installation herein does not qualify as an MCI.


          ADMIN REV. DOCKET NO. Bl630323RO

          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 
          for the reasons herein specified.


                                                  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