STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NOS.: DL 410094-RT;
: DL 410095-RT;DL 410096-RT;
VARIOUS TENANTS of DL 410097-RT;DL 410108-RT
330 WEST 58TH STREET
NEW YORK, NY PETITIONER : RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
------------------------------------X DOCKET NO.: BG 410312-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenants filed Petitions for Administrative Review of an
order issued on November 10, 1989 by a Rent Administrator concerning the
housing accommodations known as 330 West 58th Street, New York, 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 petitions for review.
The owner commenced this proceeding by the filing of a major capital
improvement (MCI) rent increase application with the agency based on the
installation of a new roof building-wide.
The owner certified that on January 17, 1986 he served each tenant with a
copy of the application and placed one copy of the entire application,
including all required supplements and supporting documentation with the
resident superintendent of the subject building. Several tenants responded
to the application asserting, in pertinent part, that the roof continued to
On August 23, 1989 an agency inspector visited the subject premises to
inspect for evidence that the new roof leaks. In his report of agency
inspection there is no mention made of leaks attributable to the roof.
On November 10, 1989 the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review finding that the roof installation qualified as a major capital
improvement, determining that the application complied with the relevant
laws and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted by
the owner, and allowing appropriate rent increases for rent-stabilized
In their Petitions for Administrative Review several tenants assert, in
substance, that the room count, as reflected in the order appealed from, is
incorrect and that the roof continues to leak.
In answer to the tenants' petitions the owner asserts, in pertinent part,
that the roof was properly installed and that this was in fact confirmed
DOCKET NUMBER: DL 410094-RT, et al.
by agency inspection. Regarding the alleged room count discrepancies, the
owner asserts that the room count had been resolved by an agency order
issued prior to the order appealed from.
After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that these petitions should be denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by Section
2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code. 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.
The record in the instant case, which includes copies of an invoice,
cancelled check and contractor certification for the installation indicates
that the owner correctly complied with the applicable procedures for a MCI
rent increase based on the proven cost of the roof installation.
Regarding the tenants' assertions concerning leaks from the roof, the
Commissioner notes that on August 23, 1989 an agency inspector was sent to
the subject premises to inspect for evidence of leak damage attributable to
the roof. The report of the agency inspection does not indicate that any of
the apparent leaks are attributable to the roof installation. Those tenants
residing in the lower level apartments for which evidence of leak damage was
noted, primarily in areas surrounding windows, on the report of agency
inspection, are reminded of their right to file services complaints with the
Regarding the tenant's assertion that there is a room count discrepancy the
Commissioner notes that the Administrator properly reduced the total
approved cost of the roof installation from $51,000.00 to $24,372.90 to
reflect the portion of the total cost to be borne by the Commercial
occupants of what would otherwise be residential space and thus properly
computing the allowable increase on a per room basis by apportioning the
reduced "net" allowable cost among only the rent regulated rooms in the
Based upon the entire evidence of record, the Commissioner finds that the
order of the Rent Administrator is correct and should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law
and Code, it is
DOCKET NUMBER: DL 410094-RT, et al.
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