DHCR Decisions                                  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.:  DC230368RO          APPEAL OF                    STEVEN FREY                    RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S                                                   DOCKET NO.:  CJ230174OM                                   PETITIONER          -------------------------------------X          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          On appeal, the petitioner-owner states, in substance, that A) the          previous system was old and outdated, causing a tremendous waste of          heating energy; B) energy conservation is greatly encouraged by the          city and state government agencies; C)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          relates thereto.          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.          ISSUED:                                                       ____________________                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta                                                        Deputy Commissioner                                          2