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
                                             
    

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