OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          -------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF
                    CELE MAYER                     
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  CE130161OM



          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

                                                        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