CH 530184-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.:
CH 530184-RO
BARKLEE REALTY COMPANY,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER BC 530173-OM
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 18, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner, filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
July 19, 1988 by a Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,
Jamaica, NY concerning the housing accommodations, known as 205
West 147th Street, New York, New York, various apartments,
wherein the Administrator granted in part the owner's application
and authorized a major capital improvement (MCI) increase for
both the controlled and stabilized apartments in the subject 16
family dwelling predicated on the installation of a new roof
(including insulation). Disallowed were claimed costs for front
entrance steps ($1,941.00) and new electrical "pull box and
trough" rewired to service switch ($1,350.00) as not constituting
major capital improvements.
In this petition the owner contends, in substance, that the items
disallowed by the Administrator satisfy the "generic" require-
ments of a major capital improvement; that since the work was
performed prior to the promulgation of the current Rent Stabili-
zation Code the useful life provisions of Section 2522.4(a)(2)(d)
do not apply; that since the formula for hardship increases does
not permit a rent increase for capital improvements; that there
is no way for the petitioner to recover the amounts invested ex-
cept under the major capital improvement provision; that in any
event the improvements meet the requirements of Section 2202.4(c)
of the Rent Regulations; that since the improvements were
intended to be implemented under a governmental loan program,
which application was withdrawn because of the emergency nature
of the work, an increase should be allowed under Section 2202.12
of the Rent Regulations, even if the work does not otherwise
qualify as a major capital improvement; and that an increase
should be granted upon equitable grounds under Sections 2202.3(1)
of the Rent Regulations and Sections 2522.4(a)(6) and 2522.7 of
the Rent Stabilization Code.
CH 530184-RO
After a careful consideration of the entire record, the Commis-
sioner 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 t e Rent Stabiliza-
tion 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, preserva-
tion, 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.
Piecemeal work or ordinary repairs and maintenance does not
constitute work for which a rent increase adjustment is warranted
under current and past procedures.
At the onset the Commissioner notes that the owner's reference to
the useful life provision of the Code (2522.4(a)(2)(d)) is irrel
evant in the context of the instant proceeding. Moreover, relief
under Section 2202.12 of the Rent Regulations is not warranted as
concededly the work in questions was not performed pursuant to
and under the auspices of a governmental loan program so as to
warrant rent restructuring.
The electrical upgrading of a building consisting of new copper
risers and feeders extending from the property box in the
basement to every housing accommodation of sufficient capacity
(220 volts) to accommodate the installation of air-conditioner
circuits would constitute a major capital improvement. However,
the installation of new electrical service without the extension
of new risers to individual apartments (as is the case herein),
constitutes a non-depreciable repair for which a rent adjustment
was properly disallowed. Furthermore, it is the established
position of the Division that the installation of exterior steps
to a building, without the replacement of all exterior stairs
does not constitute a major capital improvement. It would further
appear that the work in question did not enta l a complete re-
placement of the front entrance stoop but rather the repair
thereof. Thus the Administrator properly denied a major capital
improvement rent increase for this item.
The various sections of the Code and Rent Regulations cited by
the owner in its petition, which require consideration of all
factors bearing on the equities, does not constitute grounds for
granting a rent increase for repair work which, by the nature
thereof, does not otherwise meet the requirements of a major cap
ital improvement under established standards.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City,
it is
CH 530184-RO
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
