OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          -------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF
                    JOANNE FOLZ AND                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             DOCKET NO.:  BD610615OM
                    306 EAST MOSHOLU PARKWAY SOUTH 
                    BRONX, NEW YORK  


          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 

          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 


                                                         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