DL 110241 RT
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                          :   DOCKET NO. DL 110241-RT  
             CHITA REYES,                    :   DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             :   DOCKET NO. AA 130500 OM  
                                PETITIONER   : 


          On December 20, 1989, the above-named tenant filed a Petition  for
          Administrative Review of an order issued on November 16, 1989 by a 
          Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known  as
          Apartment 1W, 92-42 52nd Avenue, Elmhurst, New York.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the  record  and
          has carefully considered that portion of the  record  relevant  to
          the issues raised by the petition for administrative review.

          The issue  herein  is  whether  the  Rent  Administrator  properly
          determined the owner's application for a rent increase based  upon
          a claimed major capital improvement (MCI).

          The Rent Administrator's  order  appealed  herein,  increased  the
          rents of all apartments by $5.90 per room, per month,  based  upon
          the completion of pointing and waterproofing building-wide.

          On  appeal  the  petitioner-tenant  alleges,  in  substance,  that
          despite  the  MCI  installation  the  premises'  basement  is  not
          waterproof and she therefore  objects  to  the  accompanying  rent
          increase.  The tenant encloses a copy of a  correspondence  letter
          from the owner's managing agent,  dated  September  13,  1989  and
          copies of two letters that the tenant sent to the owner, one dated 
          September 25, 1989.  These  letters  reveal  that  the  owner  had
          directed  that  the  tenant,  in  her  absence  from  the  subject
          apartment, lock her windows as the owner asserted  that  when  her
          windows are left open, to any degree, during a rainstorm, water is 
          permitted into the apartment which then seeps  into  the  basement
          and that the tenant has  observed  the  owner's  husband  sweeping
          excess rain water down the stairs leading to the basement.

          In response, the owner asserts, in substance and  pertinent  part,
          that the bricks of the entire front of the subject  building  were
          pointed and waterproofed, and that the subject tenant  never  once
          complained to her about water seepage or moisture coming from  the


          DL 110241 RT

          outside walls into her apartment.  The owner further asserts  that
          any water  seepage  into  the  basement  is  attributable  to  the
          tenant's permitting her apartment windows to  remain  open  during
          rainstorms and that this was confirmed by a contractor.

          The tenant submits a detailed response in which  she  asserts,  in
          substance and pertinent part, that  she  moved  into  the  subject
          premises after the MCI installation was  completed  and  therefore
          cannot personally ascertain whether the installation had  actually
          been done but asserts that if it  had  been  done  properly  there
          should not exist any water seepage into the basement.  The  tenant
          further asserts that any water seepage is not due to her apartment 
          windows being open during rainstorms.
          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that the petition should be denied.

          The Commissioner notes at the outset that to qualify for  an  MCI,
          an installation must be (a) building-wide; (b) deemed  depreciable
          under the Internal Revenue Code; (c) structural in nature; (d)  an
          improvement to the building or to  the  building  stock;  and  (e)
          required for the operation, preservation  or  maintenance  of  the
          structure.  In addition, the cost  of  the  installation  must  be
          adequately substantiated by submission  of  copies  of  contracts,
          other   invoices,   cancelled   checks,   and   other    pertinent

          The record discloses that the Administrator properly applied these 
          principles to the  owner's  application.   The  installations  for
          which increases were allowed fit the above  definition  and  their
          costs were substantiated by the owner.

          It is further  noted  that  the  tenant  has  not  asserted  water
          penetration or leak damage to her apartment since the pointing and 
          waterproofing installation.  The tenant merely offers the  owner's
          assertion that water seepage sometimes occurs in the basement  for
          alleged reasons unrelated to  the  subject  MCI.   Therefore,  the
          tenant has not presented any relevant objections to the processing 
          of the MCI order with her petition.  Accordingly, the Commissioner 
          finds no reason to  disturb  the  Administrator's  order  appealed

          THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of   the   Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,  denied,
          and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same
          hereby is, affirmed.

                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting 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