STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
-------------------------------------X ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: DC230368RO
STEVEN FREY RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CJ230174OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 24, 1989, the above named petitioner-owner timely filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on
February 13, 1989, by the Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, New York) concerning the housing accommodations
known as 2249 Ocean Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, various apartments.
The owner commenced this proceeding on October 26, 1988, by filing
an application for a rent increase based on the installation of a
computerized heat timer.
On February 13, 1989, the Rent Administrator denied the application
and stated that the work performed did not constitute a major
capital improvement, but rather repairs and maintenance.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner states, in substance, that A) the
previous system was old and outdated, causing a tremendous waste of
heating energy; B) energy conservation is greatly encouraged by the
city and state government agencies; C) this installation provides
a comfort of heat level for all the tenants.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
It is the established position of the Division that neither a heat
timer nor a computerized heat control (a more sophisticated heat
timer) constitutes a major capital improvement since neither is a
major component of the heating system. However, Section
2522.4(a)(ii) of the Code and Section 2202.4(e) of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations(formerly Section 33.1e) permits a rent
increase for other work performed in conjunction with a qualifying
major capital improvement and the Division has allowed an increase
for a heat timer installed in conjunction with a new heating
system. Section 2522.4(a)(ii) of the Code and Operational Bulletin
84-4 (November 13, 1984), limits the application of "concurrent
improvements" to costs incurred within a reasonable period of time
of a qualifying major capital improvement and only if it directly
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DC-230368-RO
Since the computerized heat control was not installed in
conjunction with or within a reasonable period of time from the
installation of a new heating system, said item was properly
disallowed by the Administrator.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
the City of New York, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this Administrative Appeal be, and the same hereby is
denied; and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is affirmed.
Joseph A. D'Agosta