DHCR Decisions
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DA 130120-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 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: DA130120RO
APPEAL OF
HARVEY KALT
d/b/a RUTLEDGE APARTMENTS
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DOCKET NO: CF130062-OM
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 17,1989 the above-named petitioner-owner filed an
administrative appeal against an order issued on December 30,1988
by the Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Street, Jamaica, New York)
concerning the housing accommodations known as 72-04 through 72-20
Woodhaven Blvd., Glendale, New York, various apartments, wherein
the Administrator denied a major capital improvement (MCI) rent
increase for the stabilized apartments in the subject premises for
the installation of new flange gutters at the premises based on a
determination that said installation did not constitute an MCI, but
was considered as repairs and maintenance.
In this petition the owner contends, in substance, that the
installation of new gutters qualifies as a major capital
improvement since such installation is recognized by the State of
New York as a "capital improvement". In support of this contention,
the owner submits a copy of a New York State Department of
Taxation and Finance Certificate of Capital Improvement which was
completed by the owner for said installation and was previously
submitted with the MCI application. The owner noted that the
Department of Taxation and Finance defines a "capital improvement"
under its regulations as an addition or alteration to real property
which:
- Substantially adds to the value of the real property,
or appreciably prolongs the useful life of the real
property;
- becomes part of the real property or is permanently
affixed to the real property so that removal would
cause material damage to the property or article
itself; and
- is intended to become a permanent installation.
Adm. Rev. Docket No. DA130120.RO
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DA 130120-RO
In response various tenants assert, in substance, that the work
performed was in the nature of either repair work or maintenance
and should not be approved for an MCI rent increase.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized
apartments. 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 qualify for a major capital improvement
rent increase.
In accordance with DHCR policy, the installation of new gutters
alone does not constitute a major capital improvement since it does
not
meet the definitional requirements therefor. The cost for this
installation would be included in an MCI rent increase if the
gutter installation was done in conjuction with a new roof
installation.
Regarding the owner's contention that the installation of new
gutters is recognized by another agency as a "capital improvement",
the fact that the installation may be considered as such for the
purposes of another agency is not dispositive, especially where
agency definitions differ as is the case in this proceeding.
The Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator properly
determined that the installation of new gutters does not qualify as
a major capital improvement.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|