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.: DA130108RO
PETITIONER DOCKET NO: BC130273OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 11, 1989, the above named petitioner-owner timely filed
a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued
on December 28, 1988, by a Rent Administrator concerning the
housing accommodations known as 66-47 Fresh Pond Road, Ridgewood,
New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner
was not entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of
major capital improvements (MCIs).
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by this administrative appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on June 17, 1987, by initially
filing an application for a rent increase based on the installation
of the following MCIs at a total cost of $12,196.00:
(A) New prime windows;
(B) Painting of fire escapes; and
On December 28, 1988, the Rent Administrator issued the denial
order here under review determining that the installations did not
qualify as MCIs based upon a finding that the installation of the
windows was not done building-wide; that painting of fire escapes
is maintenance and repair, not an MCI; and that waterproofing not
done in conjunction with pointing does not constitute an MCI.
ADMIN REV. DOCKET NO DA130108RO
In its petition, the owner contends, that, in error, the
application and contract from W. Waterproofing Inc. stated that
only "waterproofing" was done to the premises with respect to this
MCI; that the application and contract should have stated that
waterproofing and pointing was done to all exposed sides of the
building; and that according to form RA79, pointing and
waterproofing is a major capital improvement.
In support of its petition, the owner submitted a statement from W.
Waterproofing Incorporated attesting to the fact that pointing and
waterproofing was done to the entire building. However, the
required diagram was not submitted at such time.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that based
upon the documentation submitted in the proceeding below, the Rent
Administrator acted appropriately in denying the application.
Neither the application nor the contract indicated that any work
other than waterproofing was done with respect to that particular
"MCI." Even on appeal, the owner has not submitted all the
necessary documentation needed to give consideration to the
The Commissioner notes that it is the responsibility of the owner
to submit all the necessary contracts, statements and cancelled
checks to verify all work and expenditures claimed in association
with an MCI at the time the application is submitted for
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied; and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA