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.: CI630150RT
APPEAL OF
JOANNE FOLZ AND RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
VARIOUS TENANTS OF DOCKET NO.: BD610615OM
306 EAST MOSHOLU PARKWAY SOUTH
BRONX, NEW YORK
PETITIONERS
-------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner-tenants timely filed an administrative
appeal against an order issued on September 12, 1988 by the Rent
Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing accommodations
known as 306 East Mosholu Parkway South, Bronx, New York, various
apartments, 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 the proceeding below by filing its MCI
application in April of 1987. In response to the owner's
application, several tenants filed answers, contending, in
substance, that the roof in the subject building was only repaired
in 1984 and could not be considered new.
The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, granted a major
capital improvement rent increase predicated on the installation of
a new boiler/burner and a new roof at a total approved cost of
$44,400.00.
In this petition for Administrative review, the tenants request
modification of the Administrator's order and contend, in
substance, that the owner's claim to having installed a new roof in
the building is not accurate; that according to an engineer's
report commissioned by the Tenants Association and based on a
survey conducted in January 1988 by Rand Engineering, the current
roof is not "new" but has been repaired; and that according to the
Engineer's Report, "in approximately five years from now (January
1988), the existing capsheet will reach its life expectancy and
require replacement."
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CI-630150-RT
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this Administrative Appeal
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.
As to the tenants' contentions that a new roof was not installed
and that as per the Engineer's Report done in January 1988, in
approximately five years, the existing capsheet will reach its life
expectancy and require replacement, the Commissioner notes that a
physical inspection conducted by a member of DHCR's inspection
staff on April 4, 1988 revealed that a new roof was indeed
installed. In this connection the Commissioner notes that at this
time the work was performed it was the policy of the DHCR that a
roof capsheeting of the type involved herein met the requirements
for a new roof. Furthermore, the record discloses that neither in
the proceeding below or on appeal did the tenants allege any
current leaks or roof related problems.
The record further discloses that the owner substantiated its
application by submitting to the Rent Administrator documentation
in support of the application, including a copy of the contract,
invoice, contractor's certification and cancelled checks for the
work in question; and that the Administrator properly determined
the owner's application for a rent increase based on the evidence
at hand.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CI-630150-RT
The determination is without prejudice to the rights of the tenants
filing an application with the Division for a rent reduction based
upon a decrease in service, if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is denied; and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is
affirmed.
ISSUED:
____________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
