OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF

                      Justo Romero,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: BL630077OM


          On June 26, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on June 13, 1990 by a 
          Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 2335 Walton Avenue, 
          Bronx, New York, 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 December 10, 1987 by filing 
          an application for a rent increase based on a major capital 
          improvement, to wit: installation of a new roof and sky light at a 
          total claimed cost of $13,000.00.  In support of the application, 
          the owner submitted copies of the contract and cancelled checks.

          In response to the owner's application, one tenant submitted an 
          answer objecting to the increase.  However, he failed to identify 
          any pertinent reason why the increase should not be granted.

          On June 13, 1990 the Rent Administrator issued the order here under 
          review finding that the subject installation did not qualify as a 
          major capital improvement but is considered repairs and maintenance 
          since the subject installation did not comply with the Division's 
          Policy Statements of 90-6 and 91-2.

          In the Petition for Administrative Review, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that a totally new roof and skylight were installed and 
          that this constitutes a major capital improvement.  He also stated 
          that the original contract clearly specifies that a new roof and 
          skylight would be installed for $13,000.00, the amount 
          substantiated by the total of the cancelled checks.  He also 

          Adm. Rev. Docket No. EF630296RO

          submitted a sworn statement from the Five Boro Roofing and Sheet 
          Metal Works, Inc. substantiating his claim that a completely new 
          roof of 9,300 sq. ft. was installed on the subject premises.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be 
          remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing.

          The installation of a new roof qualifies as a MCI entitling the 
          owner to an appropriate increase pursuant to long-standing Division 
          policy.  The Commissioner, therefore, finds that it was 
          inappropriate for the Rent Administrator to deny the rent increase 
          for the installation of a one-ply roof since it was the policy of 
          the DHCR that an installation 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 the said Policy Statement was made 
          effective March 26, 1991, several years after the roof work in 
          question was performed.

          In view of the forgoing,the Commissioner finds it appropriate to 
          remand this proceeding to the Administrator to allow the owner's 
          application to be completed, including calculations for any and all 
          allowable increases.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted to 
          the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator 
          for further processing, in accordance with this Order and Opinion.  
          The administrator's order 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