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.: EF130099RO
DOCKET NO.: CE130161OM
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On June 8, 1990 the above-named petitioner-owner timely filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May
14, 1990, by a Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,
Jamaica, NY concerning the housing accommodations known as 35-15
75th Street, Jackson Heights, NY, various apartments.
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 the petition for administrative review.
The owner commenced this proceeding on May 25, 1988 by initially
filing a major capital improvement rent increase (MCI) application
predicated on the installation of the following items:
Item Claimed Cost
(1) Roof $ 17,644.75
(2) Windows $ 79,760.00
(3) Hallway painting $ 4,871.25
(4) Elevator $ 37,300.00
For a total claimed cost of $139,576.00
In response thereto the tenants alleged, in substance, that the
installation of the windows and roof was defective.
On May 14, 1990, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review finding that the windows and elevator installation qualified
as major capital improvements, determining that the part of the
application relating to said installations complied with the
relevant laws and regulations based upon the supporting
documentation submitted by the owner, and authorizing rent
increases for rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments. The
Rent Administrator denied the installations of the roof (for not
being 3-ply) and the hallway painting based upon a finding that
thus work did not qualify as major capital improvements.
In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that the roof
resurfacing is eligible under the Division's decisions and
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EF-130099-RO
In answer to the owner's petition the tenants state, in substance,
that all the improvements made by the owner were a result of a
fire; and that the roof is defective and leaks.
After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
remanded to the Administrator for further consideration.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent
controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization
Code for rent stabilized apartments. Under rent control, an
increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970, a
major capital improvement required for the operation, preservation,
or maintenance of the structure. 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.
It was the policy of the DHCR that a roof cap sheet of the type
involved herein qualified as a new roof at the time the work in
question was performed. While Policy Statement 91-2 imposes more
stringent standards, the Commissioner notes that said policy
statement is effective March 26, 1991, several years after the roof
work in question was performed.
In view of the foregoing, the Commissioner finds it appropriate to
remand this proceeding to the Administrator to allow the owner's
application to be completed, including an investigation of the
tenants' complaints regarding the roof, and calculations for any
and all allowable increases if it is found that the owner otherwise
so qualifies for an increase based on the roof installation.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is granted to
the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Administrator for
further consideration in accordance with this order and opinion.
The order and determination of the Rent Administrator remains in
full force and effect until a new order is issued on remand.
Joseph A. D'Agosta