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.:  DA430081RO
          APPEAL OF
                   POMEROY COMPANY
                 
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO:  BH430079OM 
          ------------------------------------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 7, 1988, by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 524 West 123rd Street, New York, New York, 
          wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was 
          entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of a major 
          capital improvement (MCI).

          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 August 7, 1987, by filing an 
          application for a rent increase based on the installation of the 
          following MCIs at a total cost of $ 3,057.00:

                    a) new sidewalk;                
                    b) pressure-wash facade; and                
                    c) paint and/or repair           
                       1.  cornice                                           
                       2.  bay windows
                       3.  floor and stoop       
               
          On December 7, 1988, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installations did not qualify as MCIs 
          as they are considered to be ordinary repairs and/or maintenance of 
          the structure.

          In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that according 
          to DHCR precedent set by administrative appeal Docket No. CPTA 
          22,191 which denied a tenant's PAR against an order granting an 
          increase for a new sidewalk, the installation herein should also 
          qualify for a rent increase; and that DHCRs departure from said 
          precedent is arbitrary and capricious.













          ADMIN.  REVIEW DOCKET NO.  DA430081RO

          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 indicates that, with respect to the sidewalk 
          installation, this item was properly disallowed since it does not 
          qualify as an MCI under the present Rent Stabilization Code 
          (CJ230108RO).  The DHCR has previously ruled (as early as 1985, 
          prior to the time the work in question was performed) that such 
          item, as distinguished from resurfacing the entire court yard and 
          walkways  within the property line, is not a depreciable expense 
          and does not qualify as an MCI (BJ430076RO; ARL1810Q; BJ430022RO).  
          The Commissioner further notes that in the proceeding under Docket 
          No. CPTA 22,191, cited by the owner on appeal, the Rent 
          Administrator's order referred to therein and the administrative 
          appeal was filed well before the effective date of Operational 
          Bulletin 84-4, which established certain uniform standards 
          applicable to both rent controlled  and rent stabilized buildings, 
          including the requirement that an installation be deemed 
          depreciable under the Internal Revenue Code in order to constitute 
          an MCI.  Similarly, the facade work does not constitute an MCI but 
          is considered to be ordinary repairs and/or maintenance of the 
          structure for which an MCI rent increase is not warranted.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations; and 
          Operational Bulletin 84-4, 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


















                               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.:  DA430081RO
          APPEAL OF
                   POMEROY COMPANY
                 
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO:  BH430079OM 
          ------------------------------------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 7, 1988, by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 524 West 123rd Street, New York, New York, 
          wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was 
          entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of a major 
          capital improvement (MCI).

          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 August 7, 1987, by filing an 
          application for a rent increase based on the installation of the 
          following MCIs at a total cost of $ 3,057.00:

                    a) new sidewalk;                
                    b) pressure-wash facade; and                
                    c) paint and/or repair           
                       1.  cornice                                           
                       2.  bay windows
                       3.  floor and stoop       
               
          On December 7, 1988, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installations did not qualify as MCIs 
          as they are considered to be ordinary repairs and/or maintenance of 
          the structure.

          In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that according 
          to DHCR precedent set by administrative appeal Docket No. CPTA 
          22,191 which denied a tenant's PAR against an order granting an 
          increase for a new sidewalk, the installation herein should also 
          qualify for a rent increase; and that DHCRs departure from said 
          precedent is arbitrary and capricious.













          ADMIN.  REVIEW DOCKET NO.  DA430081RO

          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 indicates that, with respect to the sidewalk 
          installation, this item was properly disallowed since it does not 
          qualify as an MCI under the present Rent Stabilization Code 
          (CJ230108RO) and the DHCR has previously ruled that such item, 
          outside the property line, is not a depreciable expense pursuant to  
          Operational Bulletin 84-4 effective as of November 13, 1984 
          (approximately 4 years prior to the date the owner's appeal was 
          filed).  (BJ430076RO; ARL1810Q; BJ430022RO).  Similarly, the facade 
          work does not constitute an MCI but is considered to be ordinary 
          repairs and/or maintenance of the structure for which an MCI rent 
          increase is not warranted.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations; and 
          Operational Bulletin 84-4, 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