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.: DA130108RO 
          APPEAL OF                                          

                   Fritz Guelly
                                                             
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: BC130273OM  
          ------------------------------------X

          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
               (C) Waterproofing.

          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 
          installation.

          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 
          processing. 

          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, 
          affirmed.

          ISSUED:




                                                                          
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  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